Which requires fewer assumptions to arrive at the simplest answer?
The one that doesn't involve completely overturning ALL of the archeological evidence of the Americas.
Scientology must be true too, since it is a set of books that also exists. You should be uncomfortable at how unreasonable the Mormon position is relative to the 99% of humans who don't believe it.
Which requires fewer assumptions to arrive at the simplest answer?
The one that doesn't involve completely overturning ALL of the archeological evidence of the Americas.
Scientology must be true too, since it is a set of books that also exists. You should be uncomfortable at how unreasonable the Mormon position is relative to the 99% of humans who don't believe it.
It’s a long list. Tower of Babel. Christianity in America fully developed before Jesus. Or, assume you have the product of a gifted person who grew up in the a frontier reformation meltingpot.
The one that doesn't involve completely overturning ALL of the archeological evidence of the Americas.
Scientology must be true too, since it is a set of books that also exists. You should be uncomfortable at how unreasonable the Mormon position is relative to the 99% of humans who don't believe it.
It’s a long list. Tower of Babel. Christianity in America fully developed before Jesus. Or, assume you have the product of a gifted person who grew up in the a frontier reformation meltingpot.
Don’t slam her too hard because she’s not an academic.
I think a common misconception is that in order to be an academic you need to have some sort of vast encyclopedia knowledge of your area of expertise.
The only thing you need to be an academic is an open mind an an ability to see beyond your confirmation bias. Dan loves to claim that anti-Mormons have just as much of a problem with confirmation bias, but the reality is he doesn't understand that the null hypothesis to supernatural claims is always that they are false. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no way around that hill, no matter how hard Dan tries that hill will always be standing in his way. He has to climb, dig, or find some way to get around it which is what Interpreter Foundation has been doing unsuccessfully for almost a decade now.
I am in agreement with most of what she has to say. Don’t slam her too hard because she’s not an academic.
Looking forward to what others have to say in response to my specific questions. Then I’ll give my two cents.
Regards,
MG
Argumentum ad populum. The same claims have literally been given by many cargo cults. Evolutionary biology supports believing things that have not been seen. Conditioning oneself to believe certain tenants can change a person's life. And some people do it without books. How can we tell the difference between the two? How in the world does that support a truth claim that requires a multitude of leaps that are virtually absent in a person's lifetime? The world as we see it does not support angels, telepathic communication, goblins, spooks, and people rising from the dead. If there is a god that directed the restoration he/she/them has to be punking us.
What KR should do, in order control for global academic bias against Mopologist theories, is find a surrogate project in the outside world.
KR should find a book that has nothing to do with Mormonism or Christianity and show that it is ancient by a Bayesian analysis of length, and see if he can convince anybody in the real world that he's right. And what about witnesses? Go out there and prove something else by a similar Bayesian analysis of witnesses and see if anybody takes it seriously.
You could task any Mopologist with the same challenge but they’d probably argue back that such activity would be a waste of time. Moving goal posts, skipping steps and cherry picking is a bad thing unless you know the conclusion from the outset. Plus, added bonus, when people criticize your work, you get to smash the “antichrist” button with your right hand and “anti Mormon” with your left.
Left AND right.
Assuming the conclusion is such a ubiquitous problem in mopologetics. KR has done it again, just today. He answered my question about independence by stating that within his hypothesis testing, he assumed certain elements of his hypothesis were true, which allowed him to conclude independence. While testing that hypothesis. You can't make this stuff up.
