F*** Religion.

[_Paul Osborne]

Dear Marge,

Once you have finished reading the Book of Mormon, do let me know.

I think it's a special book. Tell me if you think it is NOT a special book. I'll respect your opinion.

Paul O

[_JAK]

Yes, religion is about “claim and assertion.” Since religions differ in their claims and assertions, they are unreliable.

Awesome. So because scientific theories differ in their claims and assertions - occasionally contradicting one another - they must all be unreliable?

Since I'm fully prepared for you to now argue that scientific theories do not involve claims or assertions in a sentence that uses lots of grammatically inappropriate quotes and italics and the word "evidence" 7 times, I'll just flat point out that it doesn't follow from disagreement over assertions of facts (religious or other otherwise) that no assertion is reliably correct. In short, disagreement doesn't imply everyone is wrong or unjustified in their claims. All it implies that not everything everyone is asserting is right.

Certainly, many conclusions particularly well rooted in reliable information are correct or if not entirely so, are fundamentally sound. As you can observe, I did not contend that “no assertion is reliably correct.” As you recognize, it’s certainly the case that not “everyone is wrong or unjustified in their claims.”

The difference is that science tends to work toward consensus. While it may not always succeed in that, it works from tentative conclusions and revises conclusions found to be in error. Scientists also tend to work with one another toward reliable conclusions that are transparent, testable, and open for examination.

Contrary to this, religious myth tends to rely on truth by assertion. It is generally not open to challenge or to providing substance for its claims. It relies on claims.

JAK

[_Paul Osborne]

Likewise, “other religions” don’t share Roman Catholic dogma,” hence, Roman Catholic dogma is “special.”

Sure, I will grant that. It meets the definition of the dictionary. The Catholic dogma is special in its own place.

Albeit, for some reason, you continue to refuse to accept the definition of the dictionary when it comes to the use of the word special.

Paul O

[_Gazelam]

Marg,

Please start a thread after reading 2 Nephi Chp.2

I would love to hear your comments and opinions in regards to that chapter.

Thanks

Gaz

[_marg]

I read 2 Nephi ch 2, Gaz. You'll have to be specific as to what it is you wish to discuss. You need to appreciate that I have a much different perspective than you do. That chapter for you has important meaning that it wouldn't for me.

[_marg]

Shakespeare the actor existed, the theory is that he was a front man for someone else who didn't want it known he was the writer.

I tend to believe Shakespeare the actor didn't write the plays.

That's a distinct possibility. I have no verdict on that, probably because I haven't studied it enough. I don't rule out anything. But I do think that some individuals can produce "extraordinary" writings seemingly "beyond their natural capability". That doesn't mean it's "supernatural". As Kirster Stendhal observed of Joseph Smith, he "showed us how ancient scripture was written". That is, not necessarily "by the gift and power of God", but he just had a "talent" for it. He could "write scripture", and persuade the most emotionally gullible that it actually came from God.

When it didn't.

It is not the norm obviously that anyone should write "extraordinary" writings beyond natural capability, if that is the case those individuals would be rare. So to argue that position for J. Smith..first some examples in which conclusively it has been established that an individual wrote "extraordinary" writings is possible. And if that is established, were they able to continue to do over time. When did Smith relative to Book of Mormon publication, ever display "extraordinary' writing ability? If he had such as ability was it conclusively proven?

It seems to me this assumption of yours fits in nicely with your belief that ..that Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. It is more an assumption that he had extraordinary ability than an established fact..it seems.

[_solomarineris]

I am done with it.
(Moderator Note) Title of thread edited in order to keep with language rules for Terrestrial Forum. Liz
.

It's like proclaiming;
" I'm done taking a S*** from now on, it is a messy process"
Good luck.

[_mentalgymnast]

However, I do plan to say more about it on my blog in the near future, by way of advice to others.

Mosiah 23
14 And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments.

Nephi:
I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.


Write all you want.

Regards,
MG

[_Morrissey]

However, I do plan to say more about it on my blog in the near future, by way of advice to others.

Mosiah 23
14 And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments.

Well, I guess that rules out Joseph Smith. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and all that.

Write all you want.

Regards,
MG

[_JAK]

Let's see if we can rehabilitate JAK's point. What if he had instead said that "religions all use the same dubious method to get to the exclusively correct answer, but this method yields different answers, and is therefore unreliable"?

Your phrasing is in harmony with what I stated.

The emotional level of discourse seems to be elevated by the expression that truth by assertion is unreliable. That is a dubious method for making categorical claims sealed from academic inquiry and skeptical review.

JAK