Religious Claims Cannot Be Falsified

[_Morley]

So the point of this thread is the complain that religious people can make claims that DJ and his buds can't falsify? who cares? How is that the religious' fault. If ya can't do it, stop pouting about it already. Just admit it, move one and find some sort of joy or meaning in life. Afterall pouting about one religion seems unnecessarily angry.

This is the kind of thing these sorts of threads amount to, I'd say:

its makes me so huffing puff angry that there are people who believe religious things like Mormonism. In my estimation there is no way Mormonism can be right. I mean the evidence in my estimation shows it can't be. But, I can't quite prove it completely wrong so I like to pout more and more as there are people who actually rely on things I can't see as the means to believe. I'm so mad and stuff....it hurts.

Hey, Stem. I was afraid that Mattie would drive you away.

I don't think you're right, but for the sake of argument, let's say you are. How would it wrong to feel or express anger?

[_Darth J]

However, because my claims are religious in nature, they cannot be falsified.

Correct.

I appreciate your acknowledging that because I invoked the formula of "God told me," there is absolutely no way to determine: (1) whether Rodney Dangerfield is still alive; (2) whether he is a Martian; and (3) whether he is, at this moment, the President of the United States.

Now build a 14 million member religion out of it.

Well, I will need some missionaries to help me. Don't worry; I already know I can't count on you.

And it might help if I have a gullible, superstitious Yankee farmer to bankroll me while I am getting started.

What about this: what if my wife catches me in the barn having sex with a teenage girl, and I spin that into the beautiful doctrine of eternal marriage? Would that impress you?

[_Darth J]

So the point of this thread is the complain that religious people can make claims that DJ and his buds can't falsify? who cares? How is that the religious' fault. If ya can't do it, stop pouting about it already. Just admit it, move one and find some sort of joy or meaning in life. Afterall pouting about one religion seems unnecessarily angry.

This is the kind of thing these sorts of threads amount to, I'd say:

its makes me so huffing puff angry that there are people who believe religious things like Mormonism. In my estimation there is no way Mormonism can be right. I mean the evidence in my estimation shows it can't be. But, I can't quite prove it completely wrong so I like to pout more and more as there are people who actually rely on things I can't see as the means to believe. I'm so mad and stuff....it hurts.

I was going to try to explaining the concept of "burden of proof" to Stemelbow, but instead I am going to engage in the equally productive task of teaching a crayon how to play football.

[_Darth J]

So the point of this thread is the complain that religious people can make claims that DJ and his buds can't falsify?

Yes, Stemelbow. Your keen intellect has correctly perceived that the point of this thread is that if a person says "God told me," there is absolutely no way to falsify the claim that Rodney Dangerfield is a Martian and the current President of the United States.

[_Darth J]

It depends on the nature of the religious claim. Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham claim and the OP's claim that the chinese menu reveals the true nature of Rodney Dangerfield can both be falsified since the so-called translations are linked to existing documents that can be translated by experts. Whether Joseph Smith or the OP actually had some inner experience that they interpreted as revelation cannot be falsified; the claim that the source materials are valid evidence of the reality purported revelations can be falsified through translation of the documents.

On the other hand, religious claims based soley on a person's inner life cannot be falisifed; they are not subject to scientific scrutiny. Try to falsify the claim that I dreamed such and such last night or thought this and that this morning. You cannot. Does that make them any less real experiences? There are clearly some limits to what scientific empiricism can account for by way of direct observation and experiment. A person's inner life is inaccessible to anyone but the person who owns those experiences. That is why religion will always be with us.

Unfortunately, the LDS Church makes many, many claims of objective fact that are not based solely on a person's inner life, and these claimed facts are fundamental to the Church's truth claims.

[_stemelbow]

No, Darth J is engaging in gentle mocking. The rage you keep seeing under the surface of all these posts is probably your own.

The rage is your own. I see your hostile posts. Don't pout. No big deal. let it go. enjoy living and stop whining about me or others. It'll help. take the advice or leave it.

[_stemelbow]

I was going to try to explaining the concept of "burden of proof" to Stemelbow, but instead I am going to engage in the equally productive task of teaching a crayon how to play football.

Football's fun, dude. but I'm thinking you probably don't know how to play it well enough to teach anyone let alone a crayon. Anyway, if one claims that the Church is proven false, then its up to that person to support that claim. Don't pout, DJ. Its unbecoming for you.

[_Buffalo]

No, Darth J is engaging in gentle mocking. The rage you keep seeing under the surface of all these posts is probably your own.

The rage is your own. I see your hostile posts. Don't pout. No big deal. let it go. enjoy living and stop whining about me or others. It'll help. take the advice or leave it.

I don't know Stem. Elvis knows I love ya, but you seem very quick to anger these days.

[_Darth J]

Darth,

How do you know what you translated in on the document you have? Is it possible that what you translated may be on a missing portion that heretofore you were unaware of? Please prove that it was not.

I feel quite confident at this time that the document I have shown you is what I translated. Should a person who can read Chinese suggest otherwise, I will then consider your suggestion.

Is that a stanza from the Dau De Jing? The fact that I can't make heads or tails of means one of two things:

1) It's written in classical (as opposed to colloquial) Chinese, or

2) My Chinese is really really really rusty (which it is).

Scientists are constantly changing their theories. So just because a person thinks this is what Chinese means today doesn't mean they won't change their mind someday.

Phelps.

You know, Wade's obsession with the KEP looks a lot like the Mormon version of Zero Stroke.

I'm sorry Darth, but you only thought you were translating this text. In reality you were simply channeling the Holy Spook as it dictated the text through you. The Spook told you you were translating in order not to freak you out.

In the absence of a person who can read Chinese coming along to contradict me, I see no need at this time to consider your theory.

[_stemelbow]

Unfortunately, the LDS Church makes many, many claims of objective fact that are not based solely on a person's inner life, and these claimed facts are fundamental to the Church's truth claims.

unfortunately again, the claims are to be taken individually and not summed up as all wrong as it seems you imply. Many to most of the claims that you probably think are bunk are probably unproven and most often not disproven. Nephites in the americas. no way says DJ. Oh give us time and a better understanding of what the text says associated with what we can figure out about the people's who lived in the americas at that time and perhaps your complaint will end up being nothing but a complaint. You aren't correct because you say so.