Do they know it's not true?
-
_Runtu
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
charity wrote:Leaves of Grass? The Book of Mormon? If so what makes you think that, when great minds have found it not to be so?
The problem here is that Lindsay's argument rests on the rather safe assumption that an earlier text (the Book of Mormon) cannot plagiarize from a later text (Leaves of Grass). When you apply that logic to the Book of Mormon, it becomes clear that the Book of Mormon is a later text that borrows from an earlier text (the KJV). That shouldn't happen if the Book of Mormon predates the KJV.
-
_Runtu
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Charity & Evidence
charity wrote:Leaves of Grass? The Book of Mormon? If so what makes you think that, when great minds have found it not to be so?
What a weak defense. Who are these “great minds”? If they are Mormon pundits marketing Mormonism, they’re biased sources.
Didn’t you earlier reject “the brain” as a repository of evidence”?
Charity:
This is where you need to ask the question of what kind of evidence. If you limit evidence to the brain, you are cutting off a whole body of evidence. Or are you the guy who says the Kitty Hawk flight couldn't have happened and must have been a hallucination?
Oh yes this was a claim you failed to address when confronted with the following:
JAK:
Exactly to the point: Evidence is that which is presented for all to see which is clear, transparent, open to skeptical review, and/or is repeatable.
Reliable evidence includes that which demonstrates the validity or the reliability of an assertion or claim.
I have no idea what you mean by "limit evidence to the brain". We process evidence (or fail to) with the brain. Your claim “cutting off a whole body of evidence” is absurd. Let's see your examples of this claim. Your straw man on hallucination is a made-up story by you. It’s irrelevant here.
Where do “hallucinations” take place if not in the brain? Let’s see how you process evidence other than in the brain. The brain is a complex physical organ.
Let's see your detailing of "evidence."
Learn something about the Brain.
Now let’s see your discussion of evidence which excludes the brain in your claim.
Read more about the brain
JAK
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
1611 AD King James Version
Runtu wrote:charity wrote:Leaves of Grass? The Book of Mormon? If so what makes you think that, when great minds have found it not to be so?
The problem here is that Lindsay's argument rests on the rather safe assumption that an earlier text (the Book of Mormon) cannot plagiarize from a later text (Leaves of Grass). When you apply that logic to the Book of Mormon, it becomes clear that the Book of Mormon is a later text that borrows from an earlier text (the KJV). That shouldn't happen if the Book of Mormon predates the KJV.
Exactly correct, Runtu.
And we know the date of birth and death for J. Smith. Therefore, the Book of Mormon cannot “predate” the translation, King James II Version published in 1611 A.D. (begun in 1604).
While the new Bible did replace the Bishops' Bible in the Church of England, there is no extant documentation to suggest that the completed book was ever formally 'authorized'. However, from 1662, the Epistle and Gospel texts in the Book of Common Prayer were taken from this Bible; and as such were 'authorized' by Act of Parliament. (source)
Joseph Smith, Jr. (December 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844) Although Smith had limited involvement with organized religion during his youth, he studied the Bible, held religious opinions, and was influenced by the common folk religion of the area.(source)
JAK
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Re: Charity & Evidence
Jersey Girl wrote:
It was definitely plagiarized.
Correct, Jersey Girl.
See my post above with dates.
JAK
-
_JAK
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Charity & Evidence
Charity,
Forget the tree behind which you hide and look at the forest!
First statements: Black
Charity's response: Red
JAK's further response: Brown
JAK: Charity,
Please feel free to quote me directly and respond to exactly what I stated.
Charity:
I will respond in red so as to eliminate pesky quotes.
JAK:
Your post here (Jan 29, 2008 5:51) seems to some extend a misreading of my comments directly to you.
More information is superior to less information. The more accurately we can take into account all the available information, the more likely we are to have a valid or reliable view. Conversely, the less information we have, the less likely we are to have a valid or reliable view. It is my position that any religious doctrine/dogma which is derived from multiple languages and multiple translations over thousands of years is unlikely to be reliable.
Charity:
I believe you are speaking of the Bible. The Book of Mormon has a 2 step process. Mormon was writing in the same language as the all the prophets of the thousand year period. It was translated into English. The Doctrine and Covenants is in English.
JAK:
Your attempt at truth by assertion fails here. You’re misinformed. The Book of Mormon is largely plagiarism. Read the sources I’ll link for you. I’ll not copy all the material.
Claims of J Smith do not constitute reliable, transparent, skeptically reviews evidence for validity. Your statement here is entirely incorrect as many books and even websites demonstrate. I can only offer quickly websites. I could list books.
While some Mormons may believe the prescribed dogma (as you do), it’s unreliable. Even a Mormon website admits Smith made claims such as in this example
“Joseph Smith claimed that in 1823 an angel appeared to him and stated that gold plates were buried in a hill near his home. The angel explained that the plates contained "an account of the former inhabitants of this continent," and that they also contained ‘the fullness of the everlasting Gospel.’ Four years later Smith received the plates, and began ‘translating" them "by the power of God’."
This claim is unsubstantiated by standard tests for evidence (as several previous posts of my have demonstrated). Reliable evidence must be transparent, open for skeptical review, tested with objective observation, and/or duplicated by others[/b]. So your claim entirely lacks validity or reliability. The fact the a narrow religious doctrine and dogma promotes the claim gives it no credibility.
The Falsity of Mormonism
Plagiarism In The Book of Mormon
Serious Errors in the Book of Mormon
Critics demonstrate that Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon. Critics specifically cite four books that Joseph Smith could have used to obtain verses for the Book of Mormon, though they fail to tell us how Smith could have acquired them:
View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith (first published 1823, seven years before the Book of Mormon)
The Wonders of Nature by Josiah Priest (published in 1825, five years before the Book of Mormon)
The Bible
Apocrypha
Research Paper with peer review at university level scholarship.
Abundant Evidence of Plagiarisms
Having established that Chaity’s claim is false, we can move on.
JAK:
So my comments are not an attack of you personally. In my last post I stated that you had my “sympathy” and “understanding.” I clarified what I meant by that expression.
Charity:
Sympathy and understanding under the circumstances are condescending and demeaning.
JAK:
Irrelevant to the discussion
JAK:
I strongly suspect that you regard Islam as wrong or perhaps unreliable. I would agree with you if that is your view. Islam has a particular religious doctrine/dogma. If you, Charity, had grown into adulthood in a Muslim family (from birth up), what would your religious views be? You will recall that I said we are all products of our heredity and environment. That statement can be well supported with evidence about any of us. f I never studied Russian, never heard Russian spoken, I would NOT know Russian (environment). None of us can escape our cradle up environment.
However, today, unlike centuries or even several decades ago, we have access to information on a far higher level as a result of several modern inventions (anything in print – books, newspapers, etc., television, Internet, university study).
I feel fortunate that both my parents were university graduates and provided me with exposure to a large world of information and ideas. They challenged me to think.
Charity:
My parents had the highest education level of their siblings. I was the first person of my cousins on my fatthers side to attend college, and only one other cousin set of my mother's family had college educations. But my parents taught me to think. I was not raised in the LDS Church, but joined when I was 19 years old and in college.
JAK:
There is no refutation here to the analysis regarding heredity and environment. As for thinking, your comments reflect one who is indoctrinated, not one who thinks. You demonstrate no insightful skepticism which is a characteristic of those who genuinely think. Rather you parrot LDS dogma. That’s not thinking.
JAK:
I have often asked parents who appear to be stifling critical thought in this way: Do you want to raise your children to blind belief or do you want to raise your children to think? When put that way, most parents (even those who want to control their kids) tend to respond by saying the want their children to think. Occasionally, there are people who really don’t want their children to think. They want to think for them. They want to control them. They want to mold them to be a virtual clone of themselves. Religious indoctrination attempts to mold people in such a way that the people do not think, do not question, do not explore.
Charity:
That's why my children were neither controlled nor stifled in their thoughts.
JAK:
I’m skeptical given your posts here. In any case it’s irrelevant.
JAK:
How do we get great science? We get it from people who do think, question, and explore. You communicate on this forum as a result of people before you who thought, who explored and who challenged previous means and methods of communication. The first printing press and typewriter were products of people who thought.
Charity:
My husband's graduate degree is in physical chemsitry. I have a graduate degree in psychology. He think my science is "soft science. But I like the "thinkers" of my discipline.
JAK:
Given your posts, I see no discipline. How have you demonstrated discipline? You demonstrate the opposite with the appearance of mindless acceptance of LDS dogma. What’s your “discipline”? What LDS claims do you approach with critical thinking?
Evidence for plagiarism in Book of Mormon is irrefutable. A critical thinker would recognize that. The only “discipline” you appear to have is blind acceptance of a particular religious dogma. Where is the thinking?
JAK:
People who claim to be “prophet” or “seer” in the context of a specific religious dogma are unreliable. Why is that? It’s because many who make such claims make different claims.
Charity:
So Gallileo was wrong because Ptolemy made a different claim? Then you should throw out all of psychology because there are many different theories of human behavior and thought processes.
JAK:
Non sequitur You appear to attempt a change of subject. I’ll address it briefly. Science is cumulative and self-correcting. New discovery which demonstrates with transparent, tested, skeptically reviewed evidence is the way science works. The world is not flat. It took science to reveal and confirm that. Your illustration is irrelevant to the discussion. It’s also a straw man attack.
JAK:
I recall some individuals who claimed that God told them the world would end on X date. The date came and went. Their claim was unreliable.
Charity:
So, that makes everyone wrong, those who said it and those who didn't. That is some crazy way of looking at things.
JAK:
You’re disingenuous, Charity. The point as you likely saw but refuse to address is that religious claims are unreliable and contradictory. You’re misreading either deliberately (which is dishonest) or out of ignorance. It’s an extension of your straw man attack. It's an argument never made.
JAK:
Now sometimes a person may, by accident, make a claim which turns out to be correct. But no one is successful in predicting future events with reliability. I’m not speaking here of stating the obvious. For example: If someone tells another person that someday he will die, that’s a statement of the obvious. Anyone could have stated that with objective information. You may have heard someone say something (of a religious nature). But, you were a willing believer not a skeptical listener. You offered no specifics here. Therefore, I cannot address specifics you didn’t state.
Charity:
The Jean Dixon's of the world make their money by percentages. Prophets have to be right every time. It is a very high standard.
JAK:
Not a shred of evidence has established before the fact claims for “prophets.” It’s only after the fact even in the case of Jean Dixon, that someone is distinguished for getting it right. All sorts of claims were made by J. Smith which were never established. Yet, Mormons disregard the clear and transparent evidence for what he did and was. He did not get it right. He could not even plagiarize accurately.
Joseph Smith’s False Prophecies
False Prophets
Contradictions
JAK:
However, it’s the “responsibility” of a listener to use his/her brain. That is, it’s a listener’s responsibility to listen to extraordinary claims with extraordinary skepticism. I expect you would do that if you were visited by a Muslim who claimed the truth of his religious doctrines and beliefs to you. You might take an extraordinarily rational, reasoned view toward the claims of a religious pundit which made such claims outside your religion box.
Charity:
I did.
JAK:
I have serious doubt that you know much about Islam. However, the issue is that you apply the same skepticism to Mormon dogma as you would apply (or did as you claim) to Islam.
That requires honest intellectual inquiry which thus far you have clearly demonstrated is a capacity which you lack. YOU are a Mormon apologist. That does not make you one who exercises skeptical review.
Your posts do not reflect an analytical mind, Charity. I also have serious doubt that you actually know much about the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church. If you do, you do not demonstrate any of that in your posts here. You demonstrate only that you are a well indoctrinated Mormon.
Your early statement here regarding Mormonism demonstrated not a scintilla of critical thinking or of an understanding of the evolution of religious dogmas and doctrines.
JAK:
Now you stated:
And I think it is quite hypocritical to demand that a person explain something to you in specific language when you wouldn't believe him if he did!
On the contrary, there is nothing “hypocritical” to require clear, transparent, and open to skeptical review a claim which someone makes. How is that “hypocritical”? Second, asking for clear evidence is how we can arrive at the validity and reliability of what someone says or claims. Most who question are open to that clear, transparent evidence.
When the Wright brothers were challenged: How in the world can you think this thing will fly?, the Wright brothers had answers. More than that, they said, in effect: Come with us to the place where we are going to try to fly this thing. People came. A few had cameras. The evidence was clear, transparent, and open for all to see. Some came away shaking their heads saying: I would not have believed it if I had not seen it. And, they should not have believed it on the say so of the Wright brothers. The skeptical review was beneficial in establishing the reliability of the claims made by the Wright brothers.
Charity:
What about those who, to use your example, would have stood there on the beach at Kitty Hawk, seen that little short hoppper flight and said, "No. that thing did not really fly. It was a collective hallucijnation. Something heavier than air CANNOT fly, and we know it! "
JAK:
Are you making a claim? Re-read my illustration. You missed: “People came. A few had cameras. The evidence was clear, transparent, and open for all to see. Some came away shaking their heads saying: I would not have believed it if I had not seen it. And, they should not have believed it on the say so of the Wright brothers. The skeptical review was beneficial in establishing the reliability of the claims made by the Wright brothers.”
Following that demonstration, the evidence was clear, transparent, subject to skeptical review, and subject to replication.
(Another straw man attack)
Are you prepared to present evidence that anyone on that day documented that the experiment was an hallucination?
JAK:
Now you stated:
(Charity):"I have heard a prophet, seer, and revelator bear solemn witness to the reality of the Savior. I know what he said. If he didn't use the words you wanted to hear, or if you never put yourself in a place where you can hear the witness, that is your responsibility."
JAK:
That’s not a clear, open statement. What was said? Who said it? How many heard it? Were the listeners already convinced? It certainly is not the responsibility of the listener to be uncritical. On the contrary, if the listener has a brain and the capacity to ask intelligent questions, the listener has the responsibility to do that.
Charity:
This is where you need to ask the question of what kind of evidence. If you limit evidence to the brain, you are cutting off a whole body of evidence. Or are you the guy who says the Kitty Hawk flight couldn't have happened and must have been a hallucination?
JAK:
Exactly to the point: Evidence is that which is presented for all to see which is clear, transparent, open to skeptical review, and/or is repeatable.
Reliable evidence includes that which demonstrates the validity or the reliability of an assertion or claim.
I have no idea what you mean by "limit evidence to the brain". We process evidence (or fail to) with the brain. Your claim “cutting off a whole body of evidence” is absurd. Let's see your examples of this claim. Your straw man on hallucination is a made-up story by you. It’s irrelevant here.
Where do “hallucinations” take place if not in the brain? Let’s see how you process evidence other than in the brain. The brain is a complex physical organ.
Let's see your detailing of "evidence."
Learn something about the Brain.
Now let’s see your discussion of evidence which excludes the brain in your claim.
Read more about the brain
Your statement:
Charity: If you limit evidence to the brain, you are cutting off a whole body of evidence.
JAK:
I want to see a full discussion of this claim with clear, transparent, open to skeptical review detail.
JAK:
You’re quite incorrect to conclude that the listener should come with a pre-convinced supposition to the expressions of someone. I am non-specific here only because your words are non-specific. That is, I cannot address what you did not say. But, I can address the principle of skeptical listening. In various posts, I have given examples of how a claim is supported. (These have not all been addressed to you, so I can understand if you did not see them.)
If I claim I have water a foot deep in my basement, you, the listener have a listening responsibility. You could simply choose to believe my claim. If there were 10 inches of rain just before, the claim is quite ordinary. Nevertheless, you could say upon my claim: I want to see this. I’m skeptical.
If I take you to my basement and you wade the water and bring your ruler, you can confirm the reliability of my claim, or you can confirm that I have only 3 inches of water, or you can observe there is no evidence for my claim. All these are ways to test the reliability of my claim. You could bring a friend. You could bring 5 friends. All of you would make objective review of my claim at the time I make the claim.
Now if I tell you after the fact, it may be more difficult for you to confirm or reject my claim. Yet, there might be water marks on the wall, clear, definite, and such that you understand there is honest, open evidence for the claim which I have made. Let me emphasize that my challenge (not speaking for sethbag) is that claims require evidence.
Charity:
We can both agree on that. We will have our major difference on what qualifies as evidence.
JAK:
Let’s see your discussion or refutation on evidence. You offer nothing here. I think (my brain) that you have nothing to offer and that you know you have nothing to offer.
Absent evidence from you to the contrary, you have demonstrated no disagreement.
JAK:
Even more importantly, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be if that claim is to be regarded as reliable. That’s the principle.
Charity:
Right. But again, extraordinary evidence of what kind?
JAK:
I’ll look forward to your discussion. The Wright brothers provided extraordinary evidence that something could be constructed that would fly. It was extraordinary in that it expanded the bounds of knowledge and skeptical challenge.
Evidence discovered today in laboratories are often extraordinary. The polio vaccine researched and developed by Jonas Salk was extraordinary evidence. We know about it and accept/understand it in our brains. I documented it here for you on the Internet. The evidence for the polio vaccine is now established and has been used throughout the world. Salk’s research and evidence was extraordinary.
Now just what do you mean by the question:
Charity: But again, extraordinary evidence of what kind?
JAK:
Thus far the question is vague and lacks clarity. I have offered clarity of definition and detail regarding evidence, how we acquire it, and how we apply it.
You have offered nothing but a question for which you detail nothing[b].
JAK:
Religion relies on claims [b]absent evidence. That fact is evidence that religion is unreliable. And different religions make different claims. In the case of this bb, the same religion has multiple and contradictory claims.
Charity:
How do you define "same?" LDS don't have multiple, contradictory claims. If you are lumping all Christian denominations, that is probably correct.
JAK:
You’re just unaware of contradictions.
Contradictions
Book of Mormon Contradictions with the Bible and with Science
Changes to Mormon Books
Problem Questions for Mormons
Contradictions
Book of Mormon vs. Bible
In 1831, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormons) began moving to the Jackson County, Missouri, area. Shortly thereafter, Joseph Smith, Jr., declared a spot just west of Courthouse Square to be the place for a prophesied temple of the New Jerusalem in expectation of the Second Coming of Christ. Tension grew with local Missourians until finally the Latter-Day Saints were expelled from the area. Many offshoots from the main body of Latter-Day Saints gradually returned to the city, often making Independence their headquarters, including the Community of Christ, the Restoration Branches and the Church of Christ (Temple Lot).
The Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is a recent split off group from the Community of Christ Church (Formerly the 'Reorganized') They are mostly in Independence.
There are various sects of Mormonism in the world today - fundamentalist Mormons, known for their continuing practice of polygamy; reorganized Mormons, known now as "The Community of Christ;" LDS Mormons, known for their missionary work and successful marketing.
JAK
Forget the tree behind which you hide and look at the forest!
First statements: Black
Charity's response: Red
JAK's further response: Brown
JAK: Charity,
Please feel free to quote me directly and respond to exactly what I stated.
Charity:
I will respond in red so as to eliminate pesky quotes.
JAK:
Your post here (Jan 29, 2008 5:51) seems to some extend a misreading of my comments directly to you.
More information is superior to less information. The more accurately we can take into account all the available information, the more likely we are to have a valid or reliable view. Conversely, the less information we have, the less likely we are to have a valid or reliable view. It is my position that any religious doctrine/dogma which is derived from multiple languages and multiple translations over thousands of years is unlikely to be reliable.
Charity:
I believe you are speaking of the Bible. The Book of Mormon has a 2 step process. Mormon was writing in the same language as the all the prophets of the thousand year period. It was translated into English. The Doctrine and Covenants is in English.
JAK:
Your attempt at truth by assertion fails here. You’re misinformed. The Book of Mormon is largely plagiarism. Read the sources I’ll link for you. I’ll not copy all the material.
Claims of J Smith do not constitute reliable, transparent, skeptically reviews evidence for validity. Your statement here is entirely incorrect as many books and even websites demonstrate. I can only offer quickly websites. I could list books.
While some Mormons may believe the prescribed dogma (as you do), it’s unreliable. Even a Mormon website admits Smith made claims such as in this example
“Joseph Smith claimed that in 1823 an angel appeared to him and stated that gold plates were buried in a hill near his home. The angel explained that the plates contained "an account of the former inhabitants of this continent," and that they also contained ‘the fullness of the everlasting Gospel.’ Four years later Smith received the plates, and began ‘translating" them "by the power of God’."
This claim is unsubstantiated by standard tests for evidence (as several previous posts of my have demonstrated). Reliable evidence must be transparent, open for skeptical review, tested with objective observation, and/or duplicated by others[/b]. So your claim entirely lacks validity or reliability. The fact the a narrow religious doctrine and dogma promotes the claim gives it no credibility.
The Falsity of Mormonism
Plagiarism In The Book of Mormon
Serious Errors in the Book of Mormon
Critics demonstrate that Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon. Critics specifically cite four books that Joseph Smith could have used to obtain verses for the Book of Mormon, though they fail to tell us how Smith could have acquired them:
View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith (first published 1823, seven years before the Book of Mormon)
The Wonders of Nature by Josiah Priest (published in 1825, five years before the Book of Mormon)
The Bible
Apocrypha
Research Paper with peer review at university level scholarship.
Abundant Evidence of Plagiarisms
Having established that Chaity’s claim is false, we can move on.
JAK:
So my comments are not an attack of you personally. In my last post I stated that you had my “sympathy” and “understanding.” I clarified what I meant by that expression.
Charity:
Sympathy and understanding under the circumstances are condescending and demeaning.
JAK:
Irrelevant to the discussion
JAK:
I strongly suspect that you regard Islam as wrong or perhaps unreliable. I would agree with you if that is your view. Islam has a particular religious doctrine/dogma. If you, Charity, had grown into adulthood in a Muslim family (from birth up), what would your religious views be? You will recall that I said we are all products of our heredity and environment. That statement can be well supported with evidence about any of us. f I never studied Russian, never heard Russian spoken, I would NOT know Russian (environment). None of us can escape our cradle up environment.
However, today, unlike centuries or even several decades ago, we have access to information on a far higher level as a result of several modern inventions (anything in print – books, newspapers, etc., television, Internet, university study).
I feel fortunate that both my parents were university graduates and provided me with exposure to a large world of information and ideas. They challenged me to think.
Charity:
My parents had the highest education level of their siblings. I was the first person of my cousins on my fatthers side to attend college, and only one other cousin set of my mother's family had college educations. But my parents taught me to think. I was not raised in the LDS Church, but joined when I was 19 years old and in college.
JAK:
There is no refutation here to the analysis regarding heredity and environment. As for thinking, your comments reflect one who is indoctrinated, not one who thinks. You demonstrate no insightful skepticism which is a characteristic of those who genuinely think. Rather you parrot LDS dogma. That’s not thinking.
JAK:
I have often asked parents who appear to be stifling critical thought in this way: Do you want to raise your children to blind belief or do you want to raise your children to think? When put that way, most parents (even those who want to control their kids) tend to respond by saying the want their children to think. Occasionally, there are people who really don’t want their children to think. They want to think for them. They want to control them. They want to mold them to be a virtual clone of themselves. Religious indoctrination attempts to mold people in such a way that the people do not think, do not question, do not explore.
Charity:
That's why my children were neither controlled nor stifled in their thoughts.
JAK:
I’m skeptical given your posts here. In any case it’s irrelevant.
JAK:
How do we get great science? We get it from people who do think, question, and explore. You communicate on this forum as a result of people before you who thought, who explored and who challenged previous means and methods of communication. The first printing press and typewriter were products of people who thought.
Charity:
My husband's graduate degree is in physical chemsitry. I have a graduate degree in psychology. He think my science is "soft science. But I like the "thinkers" of my discipline.
JAK:
Given your posts, I see no discipline. How have you demonstrated discipline? You demonstrate the opposite with the appearance of mindless acceptance of LDS dogma. What’s your “discipline”? What LDS claims do you approach with critical thinking?
Evidence for plagiarism in Book of Mormon is irrefutable. A critical thinker would recognize that. The only “discipline” you appear to have is blind acceptance of a particular religious dogma. Where is the thinking?
JAK:
People who claim to be “prophet” or “seer” in the context of a specific religious dogma are unreliable. Why is that? It’s because many who make such claims make different claims.
Charity:
So Gallileo was wrong because Ptolemy made a different claim? Then you should throw out all of psychology because there are many different theories of human behavior and thought processes.
JAK:
Non sequitur You appear to attempt a change of subject. I’ll address it briefly. Science is cumulative and self-correcting. New discovery which demonstrates with transparent, tested, skeptically reviewed evidence is the way science works. The world is not flat. It took science to reveal and confirm that. Your illustration is irrelevant to the discussion. It’s also a straw man attack.
JAK:
I recall some individuals who claimed that God told them the world would end on X date. The date came and went. Their claim was unreliable.
Charity:
So, that makes everyone wrong, those who said it and those who didn't. That is some crazy way of looking at things.
JAK:
You’re disingenuous, Charity. The point as you likely saw but refuse to address is that religious claims are unreliable and contradictory. You’re misreading either deliberately (which is dishonest) or out of ignorance. It’s an extension of your straw man attack. It's an argument never made.
JAK:
Now sometimes a person may, by accident, make a claim which turns out to be correct. But no one is successful in predicting future events with reliability. I’m not speaking here of stating the obvious. For example: If someone tells another person that someday he will die, that’s a statement of the obvious. Anyone could have stated that with objective information. You may have heard someone say something (of a religious nature). But, you were a willing believer not a skeptical listener. You offered no specifics here. Therefore, I cannot address specifics you didn’t state.
Charity:
The Jean Dixon's of the world make their money by percentages. Prophets have to be right every time. It is a very high standard.
JAK:
Not a shred of evidence has established before the fact claims for “prophets.” It’s only after the fact even in the case of Jean Dixon, that someone is distinguished for getting it right. All sorts of claims were made by J. Smith which were never established. Yet, Mormons disregard the clear and transparent evidence for what he did and was. He did not get it right. He could not even plagiarize accurately.
Joseph Smith’s False Prophecies
False Prophets
Contradictions
JAK:
However, it’s the “responsibility” of a listener to use his/her brain. That is, it’s a listener’s responsibility to listen to extraordinary claims with extraordinary skepticism. I expect you would do that if you were visited by a Muslim who claimed the truth of his religious doctrines and beliefs to you. You might take an extraordinarily rational, reasoned view toward the claims of a religious pundit which made such claims outside your religion box.
Charity:
I did.
JAK:
I have serious doubt that you know much about Islam. However, the issue is that you apply the same skepticism to Mormon dogma as you would apply (or did as you claim) to Islam.
That requires honest intellectual inquiry which thus far you have clearly demonstrated is a capacity which you lack. YOU are a Mormon apologist. That does not make you one who exercises skeptical review.
Your posts do not reflect an analytical mind, Charity. I also have serious doubt that you actually know much about the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church. If you do, you do not demonstrate any of that in your posts here. You demonstrate only that you are a well indoctrinated Mormon.
Your early statement here regarding Mormonism demonstrated not a scintilla of critical thinking or of an understanding of the evolution of religious dogmas and doctrines.
JAK:
Now you stated:
And I think it is quite hypocritical to demand that a person explain something to you in specific language when you wouldn't believe him if he did!
On the contrary, there is nothing “hypocritical” to require clear, transparent, and open to skeptical review a claim which someone makes. How is that “hypocritical”? Second, asking for clear evidence is how we can arrive at the validity and reliability of what someone says or claims. Most who question are open to that clear, transparent evidence.
When the Wright brothers were challenged: How in the world can you think this thing will fly?, the Wright brothers had answers. More than that, they said, in effect: Come with us to the place where we are going to try to fly this thing. People came. A few had cameras. The evidence was clear, transparent, and open for all to see. Some came away shaking their heads saying: I would not have believed it if I had not seen it. And, they should not have believed it on the say so of the Wright brothers. The skeptical review was beneficial in establishing the reliability of the claims made by the Wright brothers.
Charity:
What about those who, to use your example, would have stood there on the beach at Kitty Hawk, seen that little short hoppper flight and said, "No. that thing did not really fly. It was a collective hallucijnation. Something heavier than air CANNOT fly, and we know it! "
JAK:
Are you making a claim? Re-read my illustration. You missed: “People came. A few had cameras. The evidence was clear, transparent, and open for all to see. Some came away shaking their heads saying: I would not have believed it if I had not seen it. And, they should not have believed it on the say so of the Wright brothers. The skeptical review was beneficial in establishing the reliability of the claims made by the Wright brothers.”
Following that demonstration, the evidence was clear, transparent, subject to skeptical review, and subject to replication.
(Another straw man attack)
Are you prepared to present evidence that anyone on that day documented that the experiment was an hallucination?
JAK:
Now you stated:
(Charity):"I have heard a prophet, seer, and revelator bear solemn witness to the reality of the Savior. I know what he said. If he didn't use the words you wanted to hear, or if you never put yourself in a place where you can hear the witness, that is your responsibility."
JAK:
That’s not a clear, open statement. What was said? Who said it? How many heard it? Were the listeners already convinced? It certainly is not the responsibility of the listener to be uncritical. On the contrary, if the listener has a brain and the capacity to ask intelligent questions, the listener has the responsibility to do that.
Charity:
This is where you need to ask the question of what kind of evidence. If you limit evidence to the brain, you are cutting off a whole body of evidence. Or are you the guy who says the Kitty Hawk flight couldn't have happened and must have been a hallucination?
JAK:
Exactly to the point: Evidence is that which is presented for all to see which is clear, transparent, open to skeptical review, and/or is repeatable.
Reliable evidence includes that which demonstrates the validity or the reliability of an assertion or claim.
I have no idea what you mean by "limit evidence to the brain". We process evidence (or fail to) with the brain. Your claim “cutting off a whole body of evidence” is absurd. Let's see your examples of this claim. Your straw man on hallucination is a made-up story by you. It’s irrelevant here.
Where do “hallucinations” take place if not in the brain? Let’s see how you process evidence other than in the brain. The brain is a complex physical organ.
Let's see your detailing of "evidence."
Learn something about the Brain.
Now let’s see your discussion of evidence which excludes the brain in your claim.
Read more about the brain
Your statement:
Charity: If you limit evidence to the brain, you are cutting off a whole body of evidence.
JAK:
I want to see a full discussion of this claim with clear, transparent, open to skeptical review detail.
JAK:
You’re quite incorrect to conclude that the listener should come with a pre-convinced supposition to the expressions of someone. I am non-specific here only because your words are non-specific. That is, I cannot address what you did not say. But, I can address the principle of skeptical listening. In various posts, I have given examples of how a claim is supported. (These have not all been addressed to you, so I can understand if you did not see them.)
If I claim I have water a foot deep in my basement, you, the listener have a listening responsibility. You could simply choose to believe my claim. If there were 10 inches of rain just before, the claim is quite ordinary. Nevertheless, you could say upon my claim: I want to see this. I’m skeptical.
If I take you to my basement and you wade the water and bring your ruler, you can confirm the reliability of my claim, or you can confirm that I have only 3 inches of water, or you can observe there is no evidence for my claim. All these are ways to test the reliability of my claim. You could bring a friend. You could bring 5 friends. All of you would make objective review of my claim at the time I make the claim.
Now if I tell you after the fact, it may be more difficult for you to confirm or reject my claim. Yet, there might be water marks on the wall, clear, definite, and such that you understand there is honest, open evidence for the claim which I have made. Let me emphasize that my challenge (not speaking for sethbag) is that claims require evidence.
Charity:
We can both agree on that. We will have our major difference on what qualifies as evidence.
JAK:
Let’s see your discussion or refutation on evidence. You offer nothing here. I think (my brain) that you have nothing to offer and that you know you have nothing to offer.
Absent evidence from you to the contrary, you have demonstrated no disagreement.
JAK:
Even more importantly, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be if that claim is to be regarded as reliable. That’s the principle.
Charity:
Right. But again, extraordinary evidence of what kind?
JAK:
I’ll look forward to your discussion. The Wright brothers provided extraordinary evidence that something could be constructed that would fly. It was extraordinary in that it expanded the bounds of knowledge and skeptical challenge.
Evidence discovered today in laboratories are often extraordinary. The polio vaccine researched and developed by Jonas Salk was extraordinary evidence. We know about it and accept/understand it in our brains. I documented it here for you on the Internet. The evidence for the polio vaccine is now established and has been used throughout the world. Salk’s research and evidence was extraordinary.
Now just what do you mean by the question:
Charity: But again, extraordinary evidence of what kind?
JAK:
Thus far the question is vague and lacks clarity. I have offered clarity of definition and detail regarding evidence, how we acquire it, and how we apply it.
You have offered nothing but a question for which you detail nothing[b].
JAK:
Religion relies on claims [b]absent evidence. That fact is evidence that religion is unreliable. And different religions make different claims. In the case of this bb, the same religion has multiple and contradictory claims.
Charity:
How do you define "same?" LDS don't have multiple, contradictory claims. If you are lumping all Christian denominations, that is probably correct.
JAK:
You’re just unaware of contradictions.
Contradictions
Book of Mormon Contradictions with the Bible and with Science
Changes to Mormon Books
Problem Questions for Mormons
Contradictions
Book of Mormon vs. Bible
In 1831, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormons) began moving to the Jackson County, Missouri, area. Shortly thereafter, Joseph Smith, Jr., declared a spot just west of Courthouse Square to be the place for a prophesied temple of the New Jerusalem in expectation of the Second Coming of Christ. Tension grew with local Missourians until finally the Latter-Day Saints were expelled from the area. Many offshoots from the main body of Latter-Day Saints gradually returned to the city, often making Independence their headquarters, including the Community of Christ, the Restoration Branches and the Church of Christ (Temple Lot).
The Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is a recent split off group from the Community of Christ Church (Formerly the 'Reorganized') They are mostly in Independence.
There are various sects of Mormonism in the world today - fundamentalist Mormons, known for their continuing practice of polygamy; reorganized Mormons, known now as "The Community of Christ;" LDS Mormons, known for their missionary work and successful marketing.
JAK
-
_charity
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2327
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm
JAK, that got to be just too much. Let me explain something to you. No religious claim has to be proven with the kind of evidence you demand.
I am sure you have heard of faith. All religious claims are based on faith. Even though the individual known as Jesus has been documented to have actually existed, there can be no proof such as you claim that He is the Son of God, that He atoned for the sins of mankind. That takes faith.
If you want to demand transparent, etc. proof, you are lookin in the wrong place.
I am sure you have heard of faith. All religious claims are based on faith. Even though the individual known as Jesus has been documented to have actually existed, there can be no proof such as you claim that He is the Son of God, that He atoned for the sins of mankind. That takes faith.
If you want to demand transparent, etc. proof, you are lookin in the wrong place.