Religious Claims Cannot Be Falsified

[_Darth J]

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.

"Joseph Smith was the most passionate lover I ever had." --Brigham Young

I'm just offering up possibilities, Stemelbow. If you claim that Joseph Smith was not Brigham Young's rent boy, then it is up to you to support the claim that my claim is false.

[_Darth J]

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.

During the early Middle Ages, there were dinosaurs in Hawaii who battled each other with lightsabers and lived in skyscrapers.

Just give it time and a better understanding.........

[_Blixa]

Phelps.

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

That's marvelous. Though I think you should refer to the condition by its alternate name, cipher stroke.

[_stemelbow]

"Joseph Smith was the most passionate lover I ever had." --Brigham Young

I'm just offering up possibilities, Stemelbow. If you claim that Joseph Smith was not Brigham Young's rent boy, then it is up to you to support the claim that my claim is false.

Watching you unravel is a bit of an adorable show, DJ.

[_Buffalo]

"Joseph Smith was the most passionate lover I ever had." --Brigham Young

I'm just offering up possibilities, Stemelbow. If you claim that Joseph Smith was not Brigham Young's rent boy, then it is up to you to support the claim that my claim is false.

Watching you unravel is a bit of an adorable show, DJ.

Are you saying you can't disprove the claim that Joseph Smith was Brigham's rent boy? So it's a valid possibility on equal footing with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, right? Or actually on greater footing, since we know for sure that Brigham and Joseph were real people.

[_stemelbow]

During the early Middle Ages, there were dinosaurs in Hawaii who battled each other with lightsabers and lived in skyscrapers.

Just give it time and a better understanding.........

So your point is more along the lines of "I can't stand them religious folk. They can make claims that don't sit well with me"? Stop pouting. Just because we do have evidence that millions of people hold as credible and sacred does not mean your disengenuous claims somehow compare. It's as if you feel happy to complain about people having faith. What you're a believer? I hate your guts. Very astute.

[_stemelbow]

Are you saying you can't disprove the claim that Joseph Smith was Brigham's rent boy? So it's a valid possibility on equal footing with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, right? Or actually on greater footing, since we know for sure that Brigham and Joseph were real people.

Alright, Buffalo, you and DJ ought to take up the notion of promoting such a position. More power to ya. maybe people will happily accept your claims. In the mean time we'll see how well the claims of Mormonism ring in the ears of others too.

[_Darth J]

During the early Middle Ages, there were dinosaurs in Hawaii who battled each other with lightsabers and lived in skyscrapers.

Just give it time and a better understanding.........

So your point is more along the lines of "I can't stand them religious folk. They can make claims that don't sit well with me"? Stop pouting. Just because we do have evidence that millions of people hold as credible and sacred does not mean your disengenuous claims somehow compare. It's as if you feel happy to complain about people having faith. What you're a believer? I hate your guts. Very astute.

I understand why you equate logical analysis of factual claims with "hate." I also understand why you conceive of the truth value of a given claim in terms of whether it "sits well" with you, rather than looking at it in evidentiary and logical terms. As you have been conditioned to do by the Church, you are only capable of evaluating propositions in terms of emotions.

If "we do have evidence that millions of people hold as credible," then that evidence can be tested. You don't get to have it both ways by saying this but then declaring that a proposition cannot be falsified simply by invoking the formula of "God told me."

Thank you, however, for conceding the point that you cannot completely disprove the existence of a torrid gay love affair between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (sometimes involving farm animals, too, by the way). If at any time you wish to dispute my claim, the burden is on you to disprove what I say is a fact. Until you can absolutely disprove my claim, it remains plausible and unfalsifiable.


That's how logic works, you know.

[_Darth J]

Are you saying you can't disprove the claim that Joseph Smith was Brigham's rent boy? So it's a valid possibility on equal footing with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, right? Or actually on greater footing, since we know for sure that Brigham and Joseph were real people.

all right, Buffalo, you and DJ ought to take up the notion of promoting such a position. More power to ya. maybe people will happily accept your claims. In the mean time we'll see how well the claims of Mormonism ring in the ears of others too.

This is the Bandwagon Fallacy, Stemelbow. How widely accepted a belief is does not determine the truth value of that belief.

[_stemelbow]

I understand why you equate logical analysis of factual claims with "hate."

I don't do that, so of course you don't understand it.

I also understand why you conceive of the truth value of a given claim in terms of whether it "sits well" with you, rather than looking at it in evidentiary and logical terms. As you have been conditioned to do by the Church, you are only capable of evaluating propositions in terms of emotions.

Whatever. You are simply wrong again.

If "we do have evidence that millions of people hold as credible," then that evidence can be tested. You don't get to have it both ways by saying this but then declaring that a proposition cannot be falsified simply by invoking the formula of "God told me."

Hey if God told millions of people, then God told millions of people. For me, evidence rests in the notion of faith. For you faith can't be any sort of evidence whatsoever because you are unable to view what I hold as my evidence, my faith. Big deal. get over it.

Thank you, however, for conceding the point that you cannot completely disprove the existence of a torrid gay love affair between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (sometimes involving farm animals, too, by the way). If at any time you wish to dispute my claim, the burden is on you to disprove what I say is a fact. Until you can absolutely disprove my claim, it remains plausible and unfalsifiable.


That's how logic works, you know.

No it doesn't. But if the game is to disenguously claim that your outlandish claims on anything hold as much merit as does religious belief that many hold as sacred, then go ahead and parrot such notions. It does well in dialogue afterall--this dogmatism of yours.