Peterson Misleading Again

[_Daniel Peterson]

And all those things happen to have what your religious beliefs do not: empirical evidence that successfully passed the test of the scientific method.

They didn't always. Relativity and the Big Bang were theoretical notions long before they were empirically confirmed. Yet many if not most scientists accepted them already.

And, of course, I disagree that my religious beliefs wholly lack supporting empirical evidence.

[_beastie]

They didn't always. Relativity and the Big Bang were theoretical notions long before they were empirically confirmed. Yet many if not most scientists accepted them already.

And, of course, I disagree that my religious beliefs wholly lack supporting empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence that has passed the test of the scientific method.

You have what, exactly, that fits that requirement? Since we're talking about the disappearing gold plates with reformed egyptian translated by a peep stone, start there.

[_Trevor]

There really isn't any reliable empirical evidence that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt in the first place, much less saved by Moses. Silly joke.

Oh, I thought you were being facetious about the Book of Abraham. Jews in Egypt in the first century AD. My mind was still in that timeframe.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Personally, I've never accepted that religious beliefs are in a special, precious, black box, labeled "keep your mean critical hands off".

Nor have I.

You deserve to be mocked for believing in disappearing gold plates written in reformed egyptian, translated by a peep stone.

I'm capable of fending for myself.

The only reason the resurrected Jesus is not as obviously as worthy of mockery is due to the fact that our entire culture swallows it.

You wouldn't get far if you were constantly sneering at virtually everybody around you.

But yes, I think it rates right up there with your disappearing gold plates. I'm sure that makes you feel much, much better.

I don't take your opinions seriously enough to feel much one way or the other.

But all it means is that you are a product of the same culture that puts "resurrected Jesus" in the black box. I mean, really.

And I respond, "Not really."

Checkmate.

You Christians think God's or the universe's sense of justice couldn't be sated unless he agreed to allow his son to be killed? Gotta have that blood, that blood makes it all right.

The anger and hostility are palpable.

I hope you find your straw man gratifying.

If only a half-god could be killed, then all would be right with the world. Yeah, that's a 10, as well as a very familiar myth.

Maybe someday you'll be at peace with yourself. I hope so.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Empirical evidence that has passed the test of the scientific method.

I'm not sure that I know exactly what The Scientific Method is. I know of various scientific methods.

And I know something of the rules of historical evidence, etc. And they're not the same as most of the scientific methods.

You have what, exactly, that fits that requirement?

You're asking for cyclotronic confirmation of the resurrection, perhaps, or for a chemical breakdown of the plates on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed?

Sorry, but your request is silly. Not to mention crude and simplistic.

Since we're talking about the disappearing gold plates with reformed egyptian translated by a peep stone, start there.

Since I've been involved in publishing a great deal on relevant topics and don't plan to rehearse it all for you on this thread, you can start with the tens of thousands of pages here:

http://farms.BYU.edu/

I'm also taken with the work of William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, N. T. Wright, and others. Have a look at them, as well.

In the meantime, I'm working sporadically myself (among other things) on two large volumes that will appear someday and that you might find interesting.

[_beastie]

Anger and hostility???? No, Daniel, no anger and hostility. There are some beliefs that are so patently ridiculous that simply stating them frankly, without 'dress up', makes them sound, well, patently ridiculous. And believers interpret that in all sorts of malicious ways.

I'm not angry or hostile at all, and I'm already at peace in my life. I've been happier as an atheist than I ever could dream of being as a theist of any sort.

This is a good example of how believers get so personally enmeshed in their belief system that they take criticism of it extremely personally, and project all kinds of dark feelings and motives onto the person making the criticism.

After all, my summary is essentially correct (although you could quibble that it was the suffering, not the blood, that made it all right).

You Christians think God's or the universe's sense of justice couldn't be sated unless he agreed to allow his son to be killed? Gotta have that blood (or suffering), that blood (or suffering) makes it all right.

This is a factually correct statement. You do not believe that God's sense of justice (or the universe, if you're one of those Mormons who believe the demands of justice exist external to god) could be sated unless Jesus was killed. It is telling that a simple summary of your beliefs, to you, sounds hostile and angry.

[_beastie]

I've read a LOT of Book of Mormon apologia, and haven't seen a single claim that there exists empirical, testable evidence of the disappearing gold plates, reformed egyptian, and peep stones. Perhaps you can link me to that one article I must have missed.

The problem is, Daniel, that you cited counter-intuitive things that turned out to be true as if that justified believing in disappearing gold plates with reformed egyptian being translated with a peep stone. Those counter-intuitive things are known to be true because they have empirical, testable evidence backing them up. Now you resist this standard, when you are the one who indirectly suggested it in the first place. I'm just following your lead.

[_Daniel Peterson]

There are some beliefs that are so patently ridiculous that simply stating them frankly, without 'dress up', makes them sound, well, patently ridiculous.

"My grandpappy weren't no monkey!" intones Pastor Billy Bob. And his congregation eats it up. "There's some idees that's jes' so redick'lus," says Bobbie Sue, who attends Pastor Billy Bob's Foursquare Snake Handler Holiness Temple, "that jes' sayin' 'em without no 'dress up' makes 'em sound, well, redicklus."

[_beastie]

"My grandpappy weren't no monkey!" intones Pastor Billy Bob. And his congregation eats it up. "There's some idees that's jes' so redick'lus," says Bobbie Sue, who attends Pastor Billy Bob's Foursquare Snake Handler Holiness Temple, "that jes' sayin' 'em without no 'dress up' makes 'em sound, well, redicklus."

They have to be stated frankly and accurately. If I was inaccurate in my assessment, please point it out specifically.

If I didn't know better, I'd think that your example mocked a religious belief. I'm shocked.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've read a LOT of Book of Mormon apologia, and haven't seen a single claim that there exists empirical, testable evidence of the disappearing gold plates, reformed egyptian, and peep stones. Perhaps you can link me to that one article I must have missed.

If you've really read a whole lot and have managed to miss any and all solid evidence altogether, there's probably nothing that I can suggest.

I'm under no illusion that absolutely everybody can be persuaded. Of anything, really.

The problem is, Daniel, that you cited counter-intuitive things that turned out to be true as if that justified believing in disappearing gold plates with reformed egyptian being translated with a peep stone.

I cited them for a very specific and limited reason, to illustrate the concept that seemingly ridiculous notions can turn out to be true, but that, to the extent that the evidence behind them is unknown and the necessary pre-assumptions aren't in place, they'll continue to seem ridiculous and incredible.

Those counter-intuitive things are known to be true because they have empirical, testable evidence backing them up.

The evidence often came after, and sometimes substantially after, the counter-intuitive things had become widely accepted.

Now you resist this standard, when you are the one who indirectly suggested it in the first place. I'm just following your lead.

I don't oppose empirical evidence, or the seeking of it. But I think talk of The Scientiific Method is both naïve and largely irrelevant.