Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_Darth J]

I don't know who you think you're kidding, but it's not me. Yourself, maybe?

Three examples of hundreds that could be given:

That's a really profound way of looking at things. You know, I have maintained for some time now that the Loch Ness Monster killed JFK, and then faked Elvis' death but really abducted him in a flying saucer. Some of the people I talk to take issue with certain aspects of my claims, but I just advise them to put the difficult parts on the shelf and wait patiently for the day when a cogent reason to believe any of this arises.

Whoops! Did I make it seem as if "put it on the shelf" can be used to justify belief in absolutely anything? Silly me!

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 91#p587991

By your displeasure with this statement, I take it that you feel there is reason to believe that the Loch Ness Monster killed JFK, and then faked Elvis' death but really abducted him in a flying saucer.

The aforementioned are not attacked because they are Mormon. They are attacked because they are f*****g morons.

It is simply coincidental that in addition to being f*****g morons, they have a certain brand loyalty to the modern corporate re-imagining of Joseph's magic polygamy cult.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 07#p585407

So in your view, one of the elements of radical skepticism is concluding that certain specific people are morons. Thanks for sharing, Ray!

And, as far as all the scientific evidences for or against a great flood is concerned, I will just state that there are a lot of PHD's in various sciences who would disagree with you if you try to assert that their was no such event!

See: Crank

Christ would disagree with you also, by the way!

See: Begging the question

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 12#p579012

I'm sure you have a great deal of valid scientific evidence to show that the story of Noah and the flood really happened, Ray. I miss the good old days, when advanced technology (the Ark) was revealed to man by God. Now we have to rely on reverse-engineering the spaceships we recovered from alien crash sites.

Jihad, anyone?

Uh huh. What's the affirmative position that I am unreasonably advocating, Ray? Is it the failure to be persuaded by your UFO gospel? Is it the overwhelmingly clear signs that Mormonism is a man-made product of the 19th century?

The real irony here is that the NAMI and DCP are being criticised for, I'll let Scratch state it:

So I propose a kind of "compendium" of problematic material from FARMS and FAIR. Perhaps, as a group, we could go through all of the FARMS and FAIR documents and list all of the ad hominem attacks, nastiness, calls for viciousness, and so forth.

Yet dogma and mockery exists here in spades. You don't have an open mind at all, even if you claim to, because in spite of what you say, what you are speaks much louder. Perhaps you're fooling those who readily fall for your spin.

Why aren't you a Scientologist, Ray? Or a druid? Probably because you don't have an open mind, I'll warrant.

I'm not even going to go into the alien/UFO subject on this board ever again because you have tainted it with pure mockery.

I'm pretty sure that trigonometry was specifically invented to scorn and deride your claim that you can tell how fast an object of unknown size at an unknown altitude and unknown distance was traveling.

(On my earlier UFO thread you were unable to demonstrate that you'd even read the most basic literature on the subject.)

I think the most blatant display of my ignorance and unwillingness to look at your proffered evidence is when I repeatedly discussed the substance of the video you posted, with reference to specific time counts.

But if you're going to take your ball and go home, then I'm going to be indignant, too. Until I'm convinced that you have a working knowledge of how many hit dice a hobgoblin has and what your armor class rating would be if you're wearing plate mail and carrying a +1 shield, I'm not talking about Dungeons and Dragons with you anymore.

But have fun anyway. It's just terribly sad to see (supposedly) brighter minds like Kish and a few others lap up your dogma, your mockery, and your never-ending Jihads against anything you disagree with, or anyone who disagrees with you (the "cranks", of course).

What's funny about that, even though you wouldn't be aware of it, is that Kish and I had a fairly strong disagreement not long ago about the constitutionality of the insurance mandate in President Obama's healthcare plan, yet somehow I refrain from calling him a crank or issuing a fatwah against him. Still, bad lap dog! Bad!

I won't be wasting anymore time on this subject here, so you can run free and keep the spin spinning. My first day off, and it's not going to be spent watching the ego-driven "Darth Show".

Until and unless you convince me that you understand how being stricken with lycanthrope would affect a player-character whose alignment is lawful good, I won't waste time on you, either.

[_Kishkumen]

With the mockery and attacks that occur here on Mormons (in good standing, too - see Darth J as an example), it looks extremely hypocritical.

The difference between one member criticizing another, and one member enjoying the implicit authority of the Church criticizing another is so obvious that it is unnecessary to explain it to you. Personal hypocrisy doesn't enter into the equation.

[_Darth J]

My position is simple and clear: no organ connected to the LDS Church or receiving support from the LDS Church should publish attacks on members of the LDS Church in good standing.

I don't see how that is a hypocritical request on my part.

With the mockery and attacks that occur here on Mormons (in good standing, too - see Darth J as an example), it looks extremely hypocritical.

Okay, I'll explain it to you.

Kishkumen believes it is wrong for members of the LDS Church to attack the integrity and faithfulness of their fellow members because they disagree on certain interpretations of their common religion.

This has no relevance to someone who no longer believes in Mormonism at all finding certain claims purporting to defend Mormonism, and/or the mentality of certain people who defend Mormonism, to be sophomoric, fatuous, and/or unreasonable.

Because the situations are completely different, there is no double standard at work.

[_RayAgostini]

The difference between one member criticizing another, and one member enjoying the implicit authority of the Church criticizing another is so obvious that it is unnecessary to explain it to you. Personal hypocrisy doesn't enter into the equation.

So the general purpose here is to defend members against attacks by apologists, while unrestrained venom is unleashed against those very Mormons here, time and time again, because of their "silly beliefs" completely worth mocking (see Darth J).

Let me see if I have it right. Mormons criticising other Mormons is wrong. Ex-Mormons criticising Mormons is right. STOP the NAMI from attacking members! - leave that to us Exmos!

[_RayAgostini]

This has no relevance to someone who no longer believes in Mormonism at all finding certain claims purporting to defend Mormonism, and/or the mentality of certain people who defend Mormonism, to be sophomoric, fatuous, and/or unreasonable.

Because the situations are completely different, there is no double standard at work.

Be my guest and do a poll somewhere, anywhere, asking Mormons who is more offensive to them - the NAMI, or Mormon Discussions.

Point me to where you post this poll, among active Mormons. You still have posting rights on MDDB? Why not try there?

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

The difference between one member criticizing another, and one member enjoying the implicit authority of the Church criticizing another is so obvious that it is unnecessary to explain it to you. Personal hypocrisy doesn't enter into the equation.

So the general purpose here is to defend members against attacks by apologists, while unrestrained venom is unleashed against those very Mormons here, time and time again, because of their "silly beliefs" completely worth mocking (see Darth J).

Let me see if I have it right. Mormons criticising other Mormons is wrong. Ex-Mormons criticising Mormons is right. STOP the NAMI from attacking members! - leave that to us Exmos!

[_Darth J]

The difference between one member criticizing another, and one member enjoying the implicit authority of the Church criticizing another is so obvious that it is unnecessary to explain it to you. Personal hypocrisy doesn't enter into the equation.

So the general purpose here is to defend members against attacks by apologists, while unrestrained venom is unleashed against those very Mormons here, time and time again, because of their "silly beliefs" completely worth mocking (see Darth J).

Let me see if I have it right. Mormons criticising other Mormons is wrong. Ex-Mormons criticising Mormons is right. STOP the NAMI from attacking members! - leave that to us Exmos!

You don't need to put silly beliefs in scare quotes, Ray. The belief, for example, that having a cup of coffee in the morning will preclude you from going into a multimillion dollar trophy building to learn Masonic handshakes that will help you become a god is silly. I make no apologies for calling things like that silly. Nor do I apologize for mocking silly beliefs. Silly beliefs deserve to be mocked, just like animals that are no longer adapted to their environment deserve to go extinct.

The fact that you cannot distinguish between mocking a ridiculous superstition and attacking someone personally only demonstrates the degree to which Mormons let their cherished beliefs define their identity. (We're not a cult, though!)

And again, Ray, taking issue with members of the LDS Church turning on one another is not comparable to a person who has disaffirmed loyalty to that organization taking issue with the teachings of said organization.

Just wondering, but do you at any point intend to post something that is on-topic to the OP?

[_Darth J]

This has no relevance to someone who no longer believes in Mormonism at all finding certain claims purporting to defend Mormonism, and/or the mentality of certain people who defend Mormonism, to be sophomoric, fatuous, and/or unreasonable.

Because the situations are completely different, there is no double standard at work.

Be my guest and do a poll somewhere, anywhere, asking Mormons who is more offensive to them - the NAMI, or Mormon Discussions. Point me to where you post this poll, among active Mormons.

See, in addition to your randomly throwing out labels and making things up, you're also bringing up irrelevant questions. The issue you raised is not what Mormons in general find offensive. It is what Kishkumen finds offensive. But I'll go ahead with your suggestion and take a poll of the relevant demographic.

Kishkumen, which do you find more offensive?

(a) the NAMI
(b) Mormon Discussions

You still have posting rights on MDDB? Why not try there?

Nope! I have was perma-banned some time ago.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I picked the Eight Witnesses as an example simply because Peterson singled out the "Book of Mormon witnesses" (which is already a question-begging term) in his blog post. You seem to be addressing a different point than what I was discussing. The Eight Witness' ability to determine that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and that the plates they saw appeared to be of ancient work is a different issue than the probability that the plates they were shown were in fact what Joseph Smith claimed them to be. The probability that the Eight Witnesses were qualified to make those determinations is zero. They did not have any knowledge or ability to research the plates that would make them competent to make those statements. If what they were shown were in fact ancient Nephite records, that's coincidental to their testimony. You're not looking at the odds that they knew what they were talking about; you're trying to guess what the odds are that Joseph Smith was telling the truth. It still comes down to whether Joseph Smith was right, which still means that the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses is irrelevant (because their personal knowledge doesn't factor into your analysis) and lacks foundation (they couldn't have known whether Joseph Smith translated the plates and whether the plates were of ancient origin).

Let's put it this way. There are several possible explanations for the witnesses' testimony. 1) Perhaps Joseph fabricated some plates which he showed them, and they just hallucinated or lied about the angel. 2) Perhaps they hallucinated or lied about the whole thing, plates and angel entire. 3) Perhaps they really were shown plates by an angel, and the Church/Book of Mormon are true. 4) Or perhaps they really were shown plates by an angel, but for some reason the Church/Book of Mormon are not true.

Group hallucination and conspiracy aren't unheard of, but they are fairly rare, which means explanations 1 and 2 are somewhat improbable. Thus, I think, the witnesses' testimony raises the probability of explanations 3 and 4 above what they would be if there was no witness testimony for a naturalistic explanation to account for. (Still not high enough to justify acceptance, in my opinion.) Thus it would qualify as evidence for explanations 3 and 4, though not particularly compelling evidence in the big scheme of things.

You're right that my discussion about foundation and relevance is similar to evidence in a legal setting, but I'm not suggesting that people should follow the Rules of Evidence in their daily lives. I'm talking about the reasoning behind rules that determine what a fact-finder can legitimately consider as evidence---whether that fact-finder is a member of a jury, a researcher, or a person shopping religions.

I am very leery of applying legal standards to historical problems. Legal reasoning and historical reasoning are designed to accomplish different objectives. The highest priority of legal reasoning is to protect the innocent, whereas the highest priority of historical reasoning is to determine the most likely explanations about what happened in the past. For this reason, the standards of admissability and definitiveness of evidence are very different. For instance, "hearsay" is considered pretty much invalid in legal reasoning, whereas in historical reasoning second-hand accounts are used liberally. In fact, I think the application of legal standards to religious history has usually been promulgated by apologists who view the historical enterprise as a prosecution of their cherished beliefs, texts, and leaders. They want us to assume their religions' innocence until proven guilty, and to throw out any evidence that wouldn't qualify for a courtroom. You, Darth, seem to be sort of turning that approach on its head, to treat the apologists as prosecutors who must meet a legal standard of proof. A strictly probabilistic approach rejects any such privileging of one side or the other. There is no defendant; there is only a set of neutral alternatives.

But I'm having a hard time seeing how P(h) is not arbitrary.

Unfortunately, we frequently can't assign hard and fast numbers to the different alternatives. We weigh probabilities on a sort of intuitive level, based on a lot of educated guessing and induction.

[_Buffalo]

I don't think hallucinations/lying are the only counter explanations. As we've seen, Joseph used cold reading techniques to pressure people into saying they're seeing whatever vision he claims to be seeing. The same could apply with the witnesses.