Quantum of Evidence Against Major Religions

[_stemelbow]

NoRfM might be a good fit for you. It appears you want a sounding board where you can post, "Hey guys, [insert bad thing about Mormonism] is SO stoopid, isn't it!!!" and everyone will come rushing in to pat your back and agree that, yes, indeed, [bad thing] is SOOO stoopid!!

Anyone who disagrees obviously has reading and/or analytical thinking problems.

Thanks Scottie. I agree. I've been wondering why SP has been deflecting and whining about me since he's returned. I guess it doesn't matter if this place just isn't working for his "I want to whine about others with abandon" stance.

[_Themis]

just so you know, I'll continue to indiscriminately comment on things as I please. I can't help it if ya think you've made an interesting point or interesting thing to discuss that is in effect silly. I'll feel free to point it out, and then of course, I'll continue to see you whine about stem afterward. But rest assured this thread here is silliness.

It is silly to you, and I can see from your perspective why you might think so, but I think it is somewhat interesting. Like I said on another thread, I can't think of another major religion that has more evidence against. Now I am not going to make a list, and anyone is free to suggest another religion that has more, or why I am wrong about so much evdience against LDS truth claims.

[_stemelbow]

It is silly to you, and I can see from your perspective why you might think so, but I think it is somewhat interesting. Like I said on another thread, I can't think of another major religion that has more evidence against.

I can't even get anyone to respond to what that would even mean. Have you tallied up the tick marks against all the religions and found there are more tick marks against Mormonism? or is this just some figure of speech?

Now I am not going to make a list, and anyone is free to suggest another religion that has more, or why I am wrong about so much evdience against LDS truth claims.

Of course they are. I just don't get what you guys are thinking. I ask, and instead of responding in kind, i get, "stem you suck" essentially. It all comes off as silliness to me. You guys like playing that game I guess.

[_Buffalo]

It is silly to you, and I can see from your perspective why you might think so, but I think it is somewhat interesting. Like I said on another thread, I can't think of another major religion that has more evidence against.

I can't even get anyone to respond to what that would even mean. Have you tallied up the tick marks against all the religions and found there are more tick marks against Mormonism? or is this just some figure of speech?

Now I am not going to make a list, and anyone is free to suggest another religion that has more, or why I am wrong about so much evdience against LDS truth claims.

Of course they are. I just don't get what you guys are thinking. I ask, and instead of responding in kind, i get, "stem you suck" essentially. It all comes off as silliness to me. You guys like playing that game I guess.

Well Stem, one of the reasons I think that this is being put forth is, as an example, LDS scriptures. From an unbiased perspective, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are very obviously 19th century pseudepigrapha. We do find some pseudepigrapha in the Bible, but it's a mixture of that and authentic texts. The problem of pseudepigrapha figures more prominently in Mormonism than in any other religion I know of.

[_Themis]

I can't even get anyone to respond to what that would even mean. Have you tallied up the tick marks against all the religions and found there are more tick marks against Mormonism? or is this just some figure of speech?

I realize you may not agree that there is evdience against the church's truth claims, but the meaning is just to clear to think you don't know what we are saying. I already said I have not made a list. It is not a figure of speech, but based on my knowledge of other religions claims and LDS claims.

Of course they are. I just don't get what you guys are thinking. I ask, and instead of responding in kind, i get, "stem you suck" essentially. It all comes off as silliness to me. You guys like playing that game I guess.

The only silliness I see is coming from you. All I see is someone whining even though no one forced him to participate in this thread. I have not attacked you in any way, but I do have problems believing you don't understand what we mean. How can you determine that this subject is silly if you don't even know what we mean?

[_DarkHelmet]

Mormonism has many things working against it. Joseph Smith made claims that are relatively easily verified compared to other religions, and he did a good job documenting and archiving church history. Also, he built Mormonism on top of Christianity. So not only does Mormonism inherit the problems with Christianity (global flood, virgin birth, Jesus rising from the dead, etc.) but it builds on it like fan fiction. It has to be consistent. But Christianity was not documented and archived very well, so we learn new things and discover translation errors, not a big deal in Christianity, but compounds problems in Mormonism when these same errors exist in Joseph Smith's scriptures and revelations. As others have mentioned, Joseph Smith just left too much falsifiable evidence compared to other religions. It really is remarkable how successful the church has been despite these disadvantages. But I suppose it is like 9/11 conspiracy believers. Many people would rather believe the big, dramatic fictional story rather than the boring real story.

[_stemelbow]

Well Stem, one of the reasons I think that this is being put forth is, as an example, LDS scriptures. From an unbiased perspective, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are very obviously 19th century pseudepigrapha. We do find some pseudepigrapha in the Bible, but it's a mixture of that and authentic texts. The problem of pseudepigrapha figures more prominently in Mormonism than in any other religion I know of.

To claim its pseudepigrapha is to speak an opinion, Buffalo. To say some of the LDS scriptures like the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham don't have a lot of evidence to support an ancient origin, or to say each make claims that seem to contradict historical and archaeolgical understandings is a decent point though.

I'm just trying to help you become more reasonable.

[_stemelbow]

I realize you may not agree that there is evdience against the church's truth claims, but the meaning is just to clear to think you don't know what we are saying. I already said I have not made a list. It is not a figure of speech, but based on my knowledge of other religions claims and LDS claims.

I actually agree there is evidence against the church's truth claims, Themis. I was hoping to discuss this mounting evidence that some how dwarfs the mounting evidence against other religions. I find it can be an interesting thread, but instead all I get is emptiness in reply for some reason--its silliness.

The only silliness I see is coming from you.

Then you are clearly blind as a bat. I understand your need to see it all that way though.

All I see is someone whining even though no one forced him to participate in this thread. I have not attacked you in any way, but I do have problems believing you don't understand what we mean. How can you determine that this subject is silly if you don't even know what we mean?

You have clearly jumped the gun about me again, Themis. Oh well. I'm not playing the same game. If you wish to reply with something I'm all ears, hey, I might even respond too. But if you wish to complain about me again and again, I'll politely decline participation, even if I mention how silly this has all turned out.

[_stemelbow]

Mormonism has many things working against it. Joseph Smith made claims that are relatively easily verified compared to other religions, and he did a good job documenting and archiving church history. Also, he built Mormonism on top of Christianity. So not only does Mormonism inherit the problems with Christianity (global flood, virgin birth, Jesus rising from the dead, etc.) but it builds on it like fan fiction. It has to be consistent. But Christianity was not documented and archived very well, so we learn new things and discover translation errors, not a big deal in Christianity, but compounds problems in Mormonism when these same errors exist in Joseph Smith's scriptures and revelations. As others have mentioned, Joseph Smith just left too much falsifiable evidence compared to other religions. It really is remarkable how successful the church has been despite these disadvantages. But I suppose it is like 9/11 conspiracy believers. Many people would rather believe the big, dramatic fictional story rather than the boring real story.

I do not doubt that many within the church rely on what they want to believe. But it also is reasonable to consider that what we as believers believe is what we believe in spite of what we want. In a way I'd much rather not believe. Life would be much easier in that sense. Its certainly not easy to conclude belief in Mormonism and maintain a faith and trust in many scientific claims for instance. Its not easy to trust that there were nephites when in the end, we have very little to demonstrate these people existed. It'd be much easier to just say, "well its a fictional story".

[_Buffalo]

Well Stem, one of the reasons I think that this is being put forth is, as an example, LDS scriptures. From an unbiased perspective, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are very obviously 19th century pseudepigrapha. We do find some pseudepigrapha in the Bible, but it's a mixture of that and authentic texts. The problem of pseudepigrapha figures more prominently in Mormonism than in any other religion I know of.

To claim its pseudepigrapha is to speak an opinion, Buffalo. To say some of the LDS scriptures like the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham don't have a lot of evidence to support an ancient origin, or to say each make claims that seem to contradict historical and archaeolgical understandings is a decent point though.

I'm just trying to help you become more reasonable.

Well, think of it this way. If you took the Book of Mormon to a scholar whose expertise was in any ancient American civilization, and she new nothing about Mormons or Mormonism, what would she conclude about the book? That it was of ancient origin? No, no one would conclude that. They'd conclude that it was pseudepigrapha, and not of ancient origin.

If you took the Book of Mormon to an expert on 19th century American literature (and she somehow hadn't heard of the Book of Mormon, let's say), what would she conclude about it? She would conclude it was a work of 19th century pseudepigrapha, of course. Is that reasonable to you, Stem, or do I exaggerate?