Phaedrus Ut wrote:It's more of a whopper because the truth claims of Latter Day Saints are built upon the foundational claims of Christianity. Sam Harris expressed it very well with this quote:
Mormonism, it seems to me, is—objectively—just a little more idiotic than Christianity is. It has to be: because it is Christianity plus some very stupid ideas. For instance, the Mormons think Jesus is going to return to earth and administer his Thousand years of Peace, at least part of the time, from the state of Missouri. Why does this make Mormonism less likely to be true than Christianity? Because whatever probability you assign to Jesus’ coming back, you have to assign a lesser probability to his coming back and keeping a summer home in Jackson County, Missouri. - Sam Harris
Phaedrus
First, this is not true. I don't believe in talking donkeys and snakes. I don't believe that Jesus flew up to heaven and teleported into a room with locked doors. I don't believe that Moses split a sea in half. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that he lives. I believe the scriptures are the word of God. What exactly that means, I don't know. Irrespective, you don't get to tack all of fundamentalist Christianity's kooky beliefs on to my beliefs and point at the sum.
Next, even if there are Mormons out there that accept all the kooky beliefs of Evangelicalism, we still have a significant problem with insisting Mormonism is appreciably more kooky than Evangelicalism. Tell me, what is the actual probability of talking donkeys and snakes, flying and teleporting men, etc.? Give me a number. Estimate if you need to. Then give me a number for the probability of Jesus "keeping a summer home in Jackson County, Missouri." We'll add the two. I'd like to see exactly how much distance on the scale of probability Mormonism is from Evangelicalism. I'd also like you to plot Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Judaism, and Islam on that scale. I want to see the priority my ridicule needs to give to each of these religions.
Themis wrote:In that we don't have any evidence for most of them and consider them whoopers due to never having seen it happen before. With the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and many other LDS whoppers, much evidence is available that makes it obvious to the outsider and many insiders that they are whoppers.
So talking snakes and donkeys and flying men who raise the dead are unclear at this point. We've never seen it, and we don't have evidence for it, but we're going to stay on the fence. It's vague. The Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, however, just obviously can't be true. It's black and white with those. Is this really the argument you want to make?
Themis wrote:I used the word tend since I didn't want to include all Bible whoppers like a Global flood or young earth, but then some LDS and other Christians do not believe many of these whoppers. The main whopper that is common for most LDS and Christians is the resurrection.
And why does the fact that Latter-day Saints believe some of those things too mean it's not as ridiculous for mainstream Christians to believe them?
Where did I say this? I must have missed it. :)
That's the context of the discussion. Are you saying that it's unfair to insist that Mormonism deserves more scrutiny or ridicule than fundamentalist Evangelicalism?
maklelan wrote:First, this is not true. I don't believe in talking donkeys and snakes. I don't believe that Jesus flew up to heaven and teleported into a room with locked doors. I don't believe that Moses split a sea in half. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that he lives. I believe the scriptures are the word of God. What exactly that means, I don't know. Irrespective, you don't get to tack all of fundamentalist Christianity's kooky beliefs on to my beliefs and point at the sum.
However, you do get to restrict what it means to be an atheist, right?
I didn't think you'd make it this easy to point out the hypocrisy, but there it is.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:Absolutely true. It's all nonsense with a different brand name.
A lot of nonsense by any other name would smell as bad...
Then you agree that it's not quite accurate to insist that, within the context of a presidential election, Evangelicals get a pass while Mormonism needs to be ridiculed?
Some Schmo wrote:Absolutely true. It's all nonsense with a different brand name.
A lot of nonsense by any other name would smell as bad...
Then you agree that it's not quite accurate to insist that, within the context of a presidential election, Evangelicals get a pass while Mormonism needs to be ridiculed?
Yes, I do agree. They should all be ridiculed equally.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:However, you do get to restrict what it means to be an atheist, right?
Now you're being dishonest. I'm not restricting anything, I'm just describing the usage and the definitions that are derivative of that usage. I've asked you guys to show me that the definition you assert is in common usage and you've not been able to. You guys don't know the first thing about lexicology or etymology, you're just arguing from your dogmatism. You do it just as much as any Mormon, and you bitch about it just as naïvely.
Some Schmo wrote:I didn't think you'd make it this easy to point out the hypocrisy, but there it is.
No, you didn't point out any hypocrisy, you just made an ignorant implication.
Some Schmo wrote:I bet you really think this "context" helps the church's case, don't you?
I'm not saying anything about what helps other than what helps to explain truth.
I imagine for you it does, but I'll let you in on a secret: for non-members, it doesn't. As far as we're concerned, just throwing out those terms is shorthand for your "context."
Great. I didn't realize you spoke for some many, Schmoe. the official non-LDS spokesman. Whether you're catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, or animist, ol' Schmoe will speak on your behalf.
It's like this:
"You really shouldn't have raped that girl."
"You don't understand... I only did it because she was unwilling to have sex with me."
Did context help there?
that's disturbing.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Some Schmo wrote:However, you do get to restrict what it means to be an atheist, right?
Now you're being dishonest. I'm not restricting anything, I'm just describing the usage and the definitions that are derivative of that usage. I've asked you guys to show me that the definition you assert is in common usage and you've not been able to. You guys don't know the first thing about lexicology or etymology, you're just arguing from your dogmatism. You do it just as much as any Mormon, and you bitch about it just as naïvely.
Who's being dishonest now? At what point did I define atheism in that conversation?
"You guys don't know the first thing about lexicology or etymology, you're just arguing from your dogmatism." Man, I forgot what a blowhard you are. Oh yes, you're the only one who knows anything about anything. *rolls eyes* What are you, 12?
damned dumb ass.
maklelan wrote:No, you didn't point out any hypocrisy, you just made an ignorant implication.
Your silly mental gymnastic do not cover what is obvious. You're full of crap, man. But then, you're LDS. Occupational hazard, I suppose.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
stemelbow wrote: Great. I didn't realize you spoke for some many, Schmoe. the official non-LDS spokesman. Whether you're catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, or animist, ol' Schmoe will speak on your behalf.
Ya, stem, I'm the only one who thinks the LDS gospel is nonsense. You just keep telling yourself that, mmm'kay?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.