Religious Claims Cannot Be Falsified

[_stemelbow]

If a lifelong member of the GOP quits in disgust and becomes a Libertarian, did he never understand the GOP?

That's missing my point, Buffalo. I do not say you don't understand faith because you no longer believe. I say you don't understand faith based on what you've said regarding the topic.

You can't even articulate the believing position correctly - it's not your faith that is supposed to be evidence, it's the spiritual witness you received. I used to consider that evidence too - until new evidence made me reconsider.

Thanks for trying to correct me. My faith is evidence. Surely the spiritual experiences I've had make up my faith. If you wish to whimper and whine about how I choose to word it, then cool. I get that. It's a frequent activity 'round these parts.

[_Buffalo]

If a lifelong member of the GOP quits in disgust and becomes a Libertarian, did he never understand the GOP?

That's missing my point, Buffalo. I do not say you don't understand faith because you no longer believe. I say you don't understand faith based on what you've said regarding the topic.

You can't even articulate the believing position correctly - it's not your faith that is supposed to be evidence, it's the spiritual witness you received. I used to consider that evidence too - until new evidence made me reconsider.

Thanks for trying to correct me. My faith is evidence. Surely the spiritual experiences I've had make up my faith. If you wish to whimper and whine about how I choose to word it, then cool. I get that. It's a frequent activity 'round these parts.

The way you word it makes it a circular argument, and therefore fallacious. Belief is evidence of nothing except belief. A spiritual experience, if you could verify that the source was not internal to you but rather from God himself, would be the evidence you wish you had.

Sorry, I'm left to conclude that, since you can't articulate otherwise, you think I never understood the faith simply because I no longer believe. That's cultish thinking.

[_stemelbow]

The way you word it makes it a circular argument, and therefore fallacious. Belief is evidence of nothing except belief. A spiritual experience, if you could verify that the source was not internal to you but rather from God himself, would be the evidence you wish you had.

I wish for many things. But rest assured you are wrong about my wishes. And its not circular.

Sorry, I'm left to conclude that, since you can't articulate otherwise, you think I never understood the faith simply because I no longer believe. That's cultish thinking.

uh. I did articulate otherwise. In fact, I never did indicate at all that its because you no longer believe that you don't understand faith. That was your and DJ's made up straw man to whine about me for some reason. You guys...

[_Buffalo]

The way you word it makes it a circular argument, and therefore fallacious. Belief is evidence of nothing except belief. A spiritual experience, if you could verify that the source was not internal to you but rather from God himself, would be the evidence you wish you had.

I wish for many things. But rest assured you are wrong about my wishes. And its not circular.

Sorry, I'm left to conclude that, since you can't articulate otherwise, you think I never understood the faith simply because I no longer believe. That's cultish thinking.

uh. I did articulate otherwise. In fact, I never did indicate at all that its because you no longer believe that you don't understand faith. That was your and DJ's made up straw man to whine about me for some reason. You guys...

Stem, stating that belief itself is evidence that what you believe in is true is a CLASSIC circular argument. It's okay, though. I can see that most of this is going over your head. You've left logic behind because you never understood it.

[_stemelbow]

Stem, stating that belief itself is evidence that what you believe in is true is a CLASSIC circular argument. It's okay, though. I can see that most of this is going over your head. You've left logic behind because you never understood it.

Buffalo. I never did say belief itself is evidence that what I believe in is true. That's what you keep saying I am saying. I'm not.

[_Buffalo]

Stem, stating that belief itself is evidence that what you believe in is true is a CLASSIC circular argument. It's okay, though. I can see that most of this is going over your head. You've left logic behind because you never understood it.

Buffalo. I never did say belief itself is evidence that what I believe in is true. That's what you keep saying I am saying. I'm not.

Perhaps you should clarify your position.

[_schreech]

I can see that most of this is going over your head. You've left logic behind because you never understood it.

[_Darth J]

You are being silly. I did not say anything about more people listening to the message of Mormonism at all. I didn’t even say Mormonism is correct in this. Your reading comprehension is so pervasively poor. I now get the projection that you often resort to when you whine about my reading abilities. Sadly it appears you’re just so blinded by your agenda and hostility you simply won’t pause to read and pay attention to me. Its adorable though. That’s for sure.

Oh, then I simply misunderstood. I assumed that you felt that the claims of the LDS Church had superior truth value to the claim that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were gay lovers. What you're really saying is that these claims are on equal footing as far as their respective truth values.

But what would be the basis for choosing Mormonism over any other old story, since you are so opposed to evidence other than "faith"? Since you based your belief in Mormonism on the "evidence" of your "faith," how is a person who does not already have faith in Mormonism arrive at a belief in Mormonism?

Seriously? I thought you were Mormon once. I actually thought you had been on a mission at some point. And you ask this? Do you understand at all what experiences make up faith. Faith is based on something. Its not just arbitrary guessing. For most people who join up they join up because they feel they ought to attribute their experiences as evidence or reason to believe. Those experiences make up faith. I would say every person has some faith. Many don’t realize it though.

Uh huh. Anyway, how is it that one determines whether his "experiences" are being interpreted accurately? How does one know, independent of the Church's ipse dixit about what these "experiences" mean, that the Church is right about what those experiences mean?

"Faith is based on something" is a different proposition than "faith is evidence." If "faith is based on something," then faith is a conclusion based on evidence (evidence being the "something"). But you have also said that faith is evidence. If faith is both evidence and a conclusion, then this is all just circular reasoning.

So how do you know that when the Church tells you that your "experience" means that there really was a vast pre-Columbian civilization of Christian Hebrews in the western hemisphere, the Church is right about what your experience means?

How are these people supposed to determine whether their interpretations of their spiritual experiences are accurate if they (a) don't already have faith in Mormonism and (b) are supposed to have "faith" in a vacuum, and uncouple their interpretations of their experiences from objective reality?

What a ridiculous set of questions considering the comments I’ve made.

You don't know?

And we all hate straw men, so I will henceforth refrain from imputing some kind of cogent, intelligible meaning to your banter, since that would be responding to a point that you are not making.

It does seem that you often go on and on arguing things I did not even say. This thread, again, serves as a fine example of that. Thanks.

Trust me, I get it now. What you're saying is that faith is evidence, faith is a conclusion, and faith is the way to interpret faith.

I will now stop trying to be charitable and assuming that there must be something other than circular reasoning going on.

[_Buffalo]

Oh, then I simply misunderstood. I assumed that you felt that the claims of the LDS Church had superior truth value to the claim that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were gay lovers. What you're really saying is that these claims are on equal footing as far as their respective truth values.

I wonder who was the bottom in the relationship? We all know the point of Mormon priesthood gaining more privileges and perks than your inferiors, so perhaps Joseph was the top. On the other hand, it's difficult to imagine Brigham as anyone's bottom.

[Guest]

Stem, stating that belief itself is evidence that what you believe in is true is a CLASSIC circular argument. It's okay, though. I can see that most of this is going over your head. You've left logic behind because you never understood it.

Buffalo. I never did say belief itself is evidence that what I believe in is true. That's what you keep saying I am saying. I'm not.

The evidence that is faith is experience with the Holy Ghost. hebrews teaches us the faith is evidence.

...............

I humbly admit my faith, even if evidence to me, is not a valid demonstration of my beliefs. Therefore I concede my position is untenable in the realm of formal argument. I then have decided since its untenable in terms of logical argument, I am left to see whether the critics position is tenable. As I examine the claim that the Church is proven not true, I am left to note that is also untenable. My faith then continues to have room to flourish. Afterall for me, my faith is evidence.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 6&start=42

Faith is also defined as evidence in scripture. Surely its not to have a perfect knowledge of things but it is also evidence. How so? I'd say faith is evidence in that God gives people reasons to believe through spiritual experience. Its easy to counter that that's just superstition or gullibility, but unless you know, which we can't know unless we somehow go beyond faith, then you are merely making a brazen assertion which may or may not be true. In essence to criticize faith as less than what people claim it to be is to employ faith, or trust, in your own assumptions. Kinda ironic. In essence, we're at an impasse, it seems to me.

In summary, Stemelbow emerges victorious by announcing that his decision to interpret his experiences the way the Church tells him to is impervious to fact or logic (but the glory of God is intelligence!), then challenges the critics to disprove his a priori beliefs, for which he has already announced it is irrelevant whether the way he interprets his subjective experiences is consistent with external reality.

This is different from schizophrenia.......for some reason.........