Three Powerful Books

[_honorentheos]

And you’re not immune either honor.

Regards,
MG

I know. But the opinion based on overwhelming evidence the probability is incredibly high the Book of Mormon is fiction is not relying on bias to carry it.

[_Gadianton]

MG's alleged world is totally moronic. In the world he imagines, everyone is a slave to bias and all bias is equally biased. Since evidence only amounts to support pre-existing bias, how is it that anybody ever changes their mind? If evidence changes opinion, then some opinions could be better than others in principle, and MG couldn't in principle keep saying ad nauseam that so-and-so isn't immune to bias and thus, that person's arguments dismissed because bias is always the driving explanation. For bias to always be the explanation, then evidence can never really mean anything. Thus, a change in opinion is merely a shift in bias for reasons other than evidence. Therefore, it's pointless to ever look for evidence for anything, and the "three powerful books" themselves are pointless to read.

[_Lemmie]

Lol. Read the clips before you post, Mentalgymnast.

...rather than possibly corrupted or infected with false ideology or psychological influences beyond your control. It was recently that you said as much in regards to familial influences that had an impact on the way you view God...or the non-existence of God to be more exact. And that was something you were actually able to articulate.

Lol. No I didn’t. That’s your Midgley-esque pathology asserting itself.

So, do you still not realize your clip was referring to a false information situation?

[_honorentheos]

The funny part about MG's bias crusade to me is how he demonstrates latching on to a minor, irrelevent detail he then relies on to dismiss people.

Above he latched onto Lemmie's experience with a hurtful believing family member to dismiss her. He latched onto Philo drinking ale as a ready cause to be able to brush him aside. He's used sexual activity, acceptance of pornography, drinking, use of recreational drugs, and open atheism in the past as grounds for categorizing a person.

It's almost comical if it weren't so obviously lacking in self-awareness.

The reason he thinks this "everyone is biased" card works for him is he thinks his bias is towards something good and others are toward something bad and that is where the difference lies. All along ignoring that his definition of good and bad is based on accepting a Mormon worldview. Meanwhile the family member being a dick gets a pass, the LGBT kid feeling ostracized is unfortunate collateral damage that he probably blames on humanism making the kid think they are something he doesn't agree they are, using that to ignore the harm caused by Mormon culture telling a kid they are a sinner and bad person based on who they are. The moral developmental failure caused by confusing following rules with engaging in moral judgement are accepted as free will in action...and on and on and on.

Evidence is a ball getting kicked around in a game according to MG. Like Gadianton pointed out so well, it creates a form of Calvanism without the awareness that it is essentially an argument from privilege.

He's just being silly.

[Guest]

One of the arguments from the Greatest Guesser fiasco that made me laugh was around the origin of the paper. The Dales were apparently amused by Dr. Michael Coe claiming to have read the Book of Mormon once and seeing nothing in it that had to do with the Mayan people or their culture. This was brought up in a 1973 Dialog article where Coe opens the article by agreeing any critic of Mormonism ought to have read the book to then weigh in on it.

To the Dales the problem was that Coe lacked the in-depth knowledge of the Book of Mormon required to see Mayan culture in it. Their argument being they had read Coe's writings multiple times, and the Book of Mormon possibly hundreds of times between them both. Had he spent more time reading the Book of Mormon like they had, he'd be able to recognize the Mayan elements in the story as they tell it.

That should automatically strike a normal reader as silly. If one knew someone who was an expert on the writings of William Shakespeare and they, upon reading a recently discovered play told you it lacked the qualities that would suggest it was written by the bard, one would readily recognize that the probability the writing would turn out to be a genuine lost Shakespeare play is meaningfully decreased. If a person who was very much invested in that play being a lost work of his then produced 150 points of evidence they feel demonstrated beyond doubt it was in fact a lost Shakespeare work it may be interesting. But one wouldn't be surprised to see each of those points produced no new actual evidence but rather were interpretations of the writing to attempt to reveal hidden markers. In effect it's claiming the expert should have squinted harder to make absolutely sure there was no way at all someone might be able to imagine the bard wrote the play. It should be clear that the weight of the Shakespearean expert's examination outweighs the musings of the devotee to the fantastical origin story.

The Dales weren't counterbalancing Coe. They are a sideshow in a circus on the side of the road to serious archeological and anthropological study of the Mayan that distracts rather than informs.

Then add onto this all of the other problems with the Book of Mormon being historical that have nothing to do with Coe or the Maya.

Then add onto that the issues around Smith and polygamy, his adultery and lying to Emma, the fake Book of Abraham, the false prophecies and rewriting of the D&C over decades, the creation and manipulation of what we call the first vision, the Nauvoo period and on and on.

Then add to that the issues with the underlying stories in Genesis treated as facts in the Book of Mormon and viewed as literally the writing is Moses in Mormonism.

Then add to that the exposure of the New Testament authorship in it's messy, pseudepigraphic forms.

And so and and so on.

As Lemmie keeps trying to get through MG's dense noggin, the quality of evidence matters. Fallacious beliefs are just that.

ETA:
http://mormonstories.wpengine.com/wp-co ... 2_42-1.pdf

Coe's article in case anyone cares to read it.

[_mentalgymnast]

...rather than possibly corrupted or infected with false ideology or psychological influences beyond your control. It was recently that you said as much in regards to familial influences that had an impact on the way you view God...or the non-existence of God to be more exact. And that was something you were actually able to articulate.

Lol. No I didn’t. That’s your Midgley-esque pathology asserting itself.

I’m referring to this comment you made:

I have a sibling who blesses his religion for getting him through his hard days, and I will note it does personally seem to do him good, but his version of religion also requires him to righteously shun me and my family, because we don’t practice his exact religion. Whether we are good, decent, honest people is irrelevant to him. God bless religion? Sure, it helps him a lot. At the expense of those his religion asks him to hate. So, no. NOT god bless religion. In my opinion, go to ____ hell, “religion.”

Did I misinterpret you? Or are you simply saying that you have a thing with a God connected with organized religion? If so, that puts you in a position of aligning yourself as a disbeliever in any organized religion, including the LDS church, and the God that is worshipped by its members. So in that sense, you don’t believe in God, or at least the God worshipped within the LDS church.

Or for that matter, any other religious institution.

Is that a bit closer to your position?

Are you willing to admit that your views are conditioned, at least in part, to Mere-exposure effect?

You are human, right?

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

Or are you simply saying that you have a thing with a God connected with organized religion? If so, that puts you in a position of aligning yourself as a disbeliever in any organized religion, including the LDS church, and the God that is worshipped by its members.

MG - if you actually understood how cognitive biases worked you'd be ashamed of yourself for doing this. It's you latching on an unrelated detail to dismiss Lemmie and sort her into a box where you don't think her opinions carry weight.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG's alleged world is totally moronic. In the world he imagines, everyone is a slave to bias and all bias is equally biased. Since evidence only amounts to support pre-existing bias, how is it that anybody ever changes their mind? If evidence changes opinion, then some opinions could be better than others in principle, and MG couldn't in principle keep saying ad nauseam that so-and-so isn't immune to bias and thus, that person's arguments dismissed because bias is always the driving explanation. For bias to always be the explanation, then evidence can never really mean anything. Thus, a change in opinion is merely a shift in bias for reasons other than evidence. Therefore, it's pointless to ever look for evidence for anything, and the "three powerful books" themselves are pointless to read.

And you’re not immune either.

And no, it’s not pointless to look for evidence of anything.

But it is pointless to think/believe that any one of us are NOT immune to Illusory Truth Effect and Mere-exposure Effect. I mean, that’s science, right?

Do we really need to stoop to describing other world views as “moronic”?

Even if people change their mind they’re still going to either carry or create biases. Even if at times unknowingly. Conditioned response is powerful.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

But it is pointless to think/believe that any one of us are NOT immune to Illusory Truth Effect and Mere-exposure Effect.

You are using this to avoid having to weigh the evidence, you Knobbit.

[_Lemmie]

Did I misinterpret you?

Yes.

MG - if you actually understood how cognitive biases worked you'd be ashamed of yourself for doing this.

Lol! Can’t argue with that.