Is there any more evidence for Mormonism than for unicorns?

[_stemelbow]

stem, certainly DCP can help guide you to making better attempts at derailing a thread.

No. The reasoning is that both belief in Mormonism's truth claims and belief in the existence of unicorns is based on the same faulty epistemology. Not that prove that one does not exist means the other is false.

Please explain yourself. what is the same faulty epistemology between the religion of Mormonism and the existence of unicorns? I'm sure you have a point, I just can't see you able to make one.

[_sock puppet]

stem, certainly DCP can help guide you to making better attempts at derailing a thread.

No. The reasoning is that both belief in Mormonism's truth claims and belief in the existence of unicorns is based on the same faulty epistemology. Not that prove that one does not exist means the other is false.

Please explain yourself. what is the same faulty epistemology between the religion of Mormonism and the existence of unicorns? I'm sure you have a point, I just can't see you able to make one.

It's okay, stem. You weren't among my intended audience. Don't fret that you cannot see the point. Think of the fact that it eludes you as nothing more than, if even, 'collateral damage'.

[_bcspace]

Alma 32

Too lazy to even try to defend your own b***s*** anymore, I see.

No. You're just too lazy to crack open a book, even when it's just a few clicks away on the internet.

[_Buffalo]

No. You're just too lazy to crack open a book, even when it's just a few clicks away on the internet.

You're wrong about that, because

D&C 113

[_Scottie]

/Time travel back 100 years

Is there any more evidence that germs cause disease than for Mormonism??

Is there any more evidence that man can someday walk on the moon than for Mormonism?

Is there any more evidence that all matter is made up of atoms than for Mormonism?

This is fun! I wonder how many more false analogies we can make!

Now, if you want to take something like aliens, or bigfoot where there IS actually evidence...

[_Chap]

/Time travel back 100 years

So we are in 1911 ...

Is there any more evidence that germs cause disease than for Mormonism??

Yes. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease

Is there any more evidence that man can someday walk on the moon than for Mormonism?

How exactly one might get to the moon with the technology then available was a subject of lively speculation. It stayed mostly at the level of fiction, as in the novels of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, but continued technical advance gave good reason for thinking that moon travel would one day be a practical possibility.

Is there any more evidence that all matter is made up of atoms than for Mormonism?

I hardly know where to start. But for goodness sake Rutherford had even discovered the fact that atoms have their mass concentrated in a dense nucleus in 1909! Atoms were everyday stuff.


Are you trying the 'Nobody believed Joseph Smith - but then nobody believed Einstein at first, and look how that turned out' tactic here? The problem is that you could equally well apply that to Scientology, or indeed to any other non-self-contradictory proposition, such as that the centre of the Moon is composed of chocolate fudge.

[_Tarski]

/Time travel back 100 years

Is there any more evidence that germs cause disease than for Mormonism??

Is there any more evidence that man can someday walk on the moon than for Mormonism?

Is there any more evidence that all matter is made up of atoms than for Mormonism?

This is fun! I wonder how many more false analogies we can make!

Now, if you want to take something like aliens, or bigfoot where there IS actually evidence...

This is terrible Scottie. As soon as you said "travel back 100 years" you set yourself up for some sort of fallacy of retrospection or maybe a fallacy of irrelevance.

Tell me, does the fact that there was little or no identified evidence for tectonic plates 200 years ago have any bearing on whether or not there is any evidence for the claims of Scientology today? Should Scientologist take comfort in past ignorance on an unrelated topic?

Does it have any effect at all on our warrent for belief in Scientolgy (or unicorns for that matter)?

None at all.

If there is no evidence or little evidence then that is not changed at all by merely noting that we once had less evidence than we do now about a totally unrelated matter.

On the other hand, saying that there is as little evidence for Mormonism as there is for unicorns is just a way of drawing attention to how little evidence there is for the former. I don't think there is a fallacy in simply making that comparison. One could go ahead and try to argue that there is more evidence for Mormonism of course.

[_sock puppet]

Now, if you want to take something like aliens, or bigfoot where there IS actually evidence...

So, belief in aliens and bigfoot is more rational than, say, belief in Mormonism's truth claims? Is that your point?

If so, what does that say about the way those who belief Mormonism but not in aliens or bigfoot view evidence in the search for truth?

[_stemelbow]

It's okay, stem. You weren't among my intended audience. Don't fret that you cannot see the point. Think of the fact that it eludes you as nothing more than, if even, 'collateral damage'.

I totally understand that you are unable to explain yourself to the point of making a valid point. If that's what you needed pointed out then your welcome.

[_Scottie]

Now, if you want to take something like aliens, or bigfoot where there IS actually evidence...

So, belief in aliens and bigfoot is more rational than, say, belief in Mormonism's truth claims? Is that your point?

If so, what does that say about the way those who belief Mormonism but not in aliens or bigfoot view evidence in the search for truth?

Okay, I admit, bad analogy is bad.

But, yes. You sound like one of these guys who says that there is Z E R O evidence that Mormonism is true. Which is just flatly false. There is, indeed, evidence for the truthfulness of Mormonism.

Now, the evidence is strained and there is precious little of it... but it DOES exist.

Just as the evidence for bigfoot is strained and there is precious little of it.

But I don't know of any evidence that honestly leads us to think unicorns exist.

Aliens, on the other hand, have quite a large following and the evidences are many. You can interpret them as you see fit.

So it would be more accurate to ask the question whether there is more evidence for bigfoot than for Mormonism. I think these 2 are somewhat on par.