Religious Claims Cannot Be Falsified

[_stemelbow]

Until 18 months ago, I was a believing Mormon just like you, Stem. I know for sure that faith is not evidence. And I would know it even if I'd never had faith, because I know what evidence is, and faith doesn't meet the definition, other than evidence for your internal state of mind.

Perhaps you left 18 mos ago because you don't understand faith. it didn't comport with you very well. It wasn't surely evidence. If that was the case to me, I'd probably be gone too. But sadly, I simply can't deny the evidence I've recevied via spiritual experience. if you only understood...

[_Drifting]

Until 18 months ago, I was a believing Mormon just like you, Stem. I know for sure that faith is not evidence. And I would know it even if I'd never had faith, because I know what evidence is, and faith doesn't meet the definition, other than evidence for your internal state of mind.

Perhaps you left 18 mos ago because you don't understand faith. it didn't comport with you very well. It wasn't surely evidence. If that was the case to me, I'd probably be gone too. But sadly, I simply can't deny the evidence I've recevied via spiritual experience. if you only understood...

I don't understand faith.

[_Buffalo]

Until 18 months ago, I was a believing Mormon just like you, Stem. I know for sure that faith is not evidence. And I would know it even if I'd never had faith, because I know what evidence is, and faith doesn't meet the definition, other than evidence for your internal state of mind.

Perhaps you left 18 mos ago because you don't understand faith. it didn't comport with you very well. It wasn't surely evidence. If that was the case to me, I'd probably be gone too. But sadly, I simply can't deny the evidence I've recevied via spiritual experience. if you only understood...

That's a really offensive and really stupid argument. I got along with the faith fine for decades. New information (read: evidence) forced me to re-evaluate my faith.

I guarantee you that unless you actually saw visions, our spiritual experiences were similar. I had to reinterpret what I thought they were, again, in light of new evidence.

[_stemelbow]

That's a really offensive and really stupid argument. I got along with the faith fine for decades. New information (read: evidence) forced me to re-evaluate my faith.

I didn't mean to offend you at all. I simply think your faith was misunderstood by yourself.

I guarantee you that unless you actually saw visions, our spiritual experiences were similar. I had to reinterpret what I thought they were, again, in light of new evidence.

And to each his own. Surely our spiritual experiences have similiarities, but such is common with things like this. Sure anything I describe can be viewed as something similiar that you experienced. But that doesn't mean they are equal nor that your experiences had the same effect, nor that your experiences were as lasting, nor that your experinces were as useful or helpful or real or any of that.

[_Darth J]

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

Earth to DJ: The fallacy would be me invoking the notion that many people believe in Mormonism is proof of it being true. that's not my take. Indeed I'd encourage you and Buffalo in your disengenuous games. In the mean time, I'll also happily accept any LDS converts to the good cause.

I think it'd help you if you actually read and paid attention to other posters who disagree with ya, DJ, rather than trying your best to misrepresent them and then pouting about the straw men you create.

Your comment only makes sense in the context of claiming that belief in the LDS Church has superior truth value because more people are going to listen to it.

However, I stand corrected. Assuming that your post should be read in a context that has some kind of coherent meaning was indeed a straw man.

[_Buffalo]

I didn't mean to offend you at all. I simply think your faith was misunderstood by yourself.

What basis do you have for thinking that?

[_stemelbow]

Your comment only makes sense in the context of claiming that belief in the LDS Church has superior truth value because more people are going to listen to it.

What terrible reading comprehension. i didn't say anything about more people going to listen to it. My point is merely you can go and promote any old story you want. In the wake of that Mormonism will still go out to promote its own religion. Your reading comprehension is proven abysmal again.

However, I stand corrected. Assuming that your post should be read in a context that has some kind of coherent meaning was indeed a straw man.

Sadly straw man is the name of your silly little but obviously hostile game.

[_stemelbow]

What basis do you have for thinking that?

Based on your dogmatic claims that my faith is not evidence--little do you know.

[_Darth J]

Hey if God told millions of people, then God told millions of people.

See: Bandwagon Fallacy

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.

Yes, I have absolutely no idea what it is like to be a believing Mormon. That experience is totally beyond my comprehension.

And it's not as if I currently believe in God or an afterlife or anything like that. If you don't believe in the faith-promoting narrative, you just must not have faith in anything at all. That's just how it is!

Or else I must have never understood it, like Buffalo, because it cannot be the case that a person could legitimately understand Mormonism, understand its approach to epistemology, and yet arrive at a conclusion that the truth claims of the LDS Church are false. That is completely impossible, seeing as how the truthfulness of the Church is so self-evident.

You know, an epistle attributed to Paul said that "faith is evidence," and a Book of Mormon prophet somehow was able to quote that several hundred years before the fact, so it must be that faith is evidence. We have faith because we have faith. See: circular reasoning

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.

I think it's adorable to watch Stemelbow's fussin' and whinin' and poutin' because he can't disprove my claims. It must be frustrating for him to know that it remains a possibility that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had all that man-on-man action goin' on, and until Stemelbow can conclusively prove it didn't happen, I am perfectly justified in assuming that it did happen. I've seen what Stemelbow whines about in response. It's nuthin' much.

Pep pep!

[_Darth J]

What basis do you have for thinking that?

Based on your dogmatic claims that my faith is not evidence--little do you know.

Buffalo, he knows you didn't understand it based on your failure to share his cherished beliefs.