Recovery from MAD

[_asbestosman]

What of it? And what exactly is "sciegion" anyhow?

Far as I'm concerned, it's a word that a certain guy at MAD invented and often uses against The Dude.

I do get frustrated by diehard religionists always trying to cloud the issue by labeling non-belief in God a religion, or science a religion, or whatever. Science is about developing and improving our understanding of how things in our world (and the rest of the universe) work by rational thought, good problem solving techniques, rigorous mathematics and other scientific discipline, and most importantly, evidence that we can observe, measure, and test in this real universe in which we live, and to apply some of the knowledge to the development of technologies that help improve our lot.

I'm fine with science. As an engineer, I'm part scientist myself. While I think that many atheists hold their views rather "religiously" or almost with a sort of faith as it were, I do not think it is inherent in atheism itself.

[_why me]

The Bible can be verified archeology

So you would agree the the Bible has a leg up on the Book of Mormon? So to speak?

The Bible is at least verifiably ancient. That doesn't mean it's also "true" in the Mormonesque jargon meaning of that term.

The Book of Mormon is not ancient, nor true. So, in that sense, the Bible has "leg up" on the Book of Mormon, but I'm not convinced that really means much in terms of religious validity. So it's an ancient fictionalized account including some things that really happened, rather than a modern fictional account of things which almost certainly didn't happen. Both are, in their intended purposes, still fiction.

Atheists tend to be sign seekers and the new testament does mention the danger of seeking signs. Also the new testament mentions (through warning) the danger of being too learned and too wise in understanding. This problem has existed for quite some time, and especially at the time of Paul as Greek philosophy was making inroads into the minds of certain Christians.

Plus, compound it by the plurality of gods, the sun god, the war god etc.
St. Augustine mentions this in his famous City of God book. This debate is far from new and the attack by atheists is also far from new.

[_Sethbag]

The rest is up to debate as to truth and god. If there is a god, this god will not allow either book to be proven true unless a second coming is at hand. Thus, religionists are behind an eightball since atheists tend to be sign seekers in regards to religion.

On what basis do you determine that a God, if he did exist, would not let the Bible or Book of Mormon be proven true? You assert it as if it were fact, but it's entirely unsupported. God, if he exists, allowed Relativity to be discovered. He allowed approximate family trees of human evolution to be discovered. He allowed tectonic plate theory to be discovered. He allowed the germ theory of disease to be discovered. He allowed the smelting of iron, copper, and other metals to be discovered. He's allowed an awful lot of things to be discovered, explained, and understood. Many of the things we've discovered in the last couple hundred years are, for all practical purposes, beyond dispute. So tell me again why he wouldn't allow us to discover sufficient evidence to prove the Book of Mormon true? Why should accept that he would never allow for the Bible to be proven true, assuming God in fact existed, and the Bible were in fact true?

[Anonymous]

What of it? And what exactly is "sciegion" anyhow?

Far as I'm concerned, it's a word that a certain guy at MAD invented and often uses against The Dude.

Yeah, that's what I think too. by the way, it's YH8, as I recall.

I do get frustrated by diehard religionists always trying to cloud the issue by labeling non-belief in God a religion, or science a religion, or whatever. Science is about developing and improving our understanding of how things in our world (and the rest of the universe) work by rational thought, good problem solving techniques, rigorous mathematics and other scientific discipline, and most importantly, evidence that we can observe, measure, and test in this real universe in which we live, and to apply some of the knowledge to the development of technologies that help improve our lot.

I'm fine with science. As an engineer, I'm part scientist myself. While I think that many atheists hold their views rather "religiously" or almost with a sort of faith as it were, I do not think it is inherent in atheism itself.

It isn't. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a God. I was going to say that atheism is the belief that there is no God, but I have to make sure to be careful in how that is said, because Richard Dawkins has to fit into anyone's definition of an atheist, and yet he only goes so far as to say that there is almost certainly no God, not that there definitely isn't a God. He allows that the non-existence of God cannot be proven but, just as the non-existence of a Celestial Teapot cannot be proven, that is no reason to believe there must be one, and indeed there are a lot of reasons to suspect that there isn't.

[_Sethbag]

Atheists tend to be sign seekers and the new testament does mention the danger of seeking signs. Also the new testament mentions (through warning) the danger of being too learned and too wise in understanding. This problem has existed for quite some time, and especially at the time of Paul as Greek philosophy was making inroads into the minds of certain Christians.

This is kinda funny, actually. Sign seekers? How is it that you're trying to prejudice the conversation about evidence with such a loaded word? I wouldn't consider myself a sign seeker in the Biblical sense anyhow. I just see that there is a lot of reason to suspect that there is not a God, and not a whole lot in the way of evidence that there actually is one. How about not talking about "sign seekers" anymore and just rephrase that as "people who see no evidence for there being a God". I think a healthy respect for evidence, and a healthy mistrust in claims made that are insupportable by reference to any evidence, are actually very good, healthy traits, and not the pejorative "sign seeker" idea you put forth.

Also, the New Testament warns of people being too learned and too wise in understanding. I used to think there was some deep wisdom in this notion, but now I just think it's funny. I think it's probable that it's possible to be too well-educated, and too well practiced in critical and rational thinking, to be duped by the specious and incredible claims of Mormonism, but I wouldn't regard that as a bad thing. On the contrary. I also think it's possible to be too well-educated, and too well practiced in critical and rational thinking, to fall for the claims of Jehovah's Witnesses, or the Moonies, or the Hare Krishnas, or any other religion, for that matter.

Let me ask you, Why Me. Do you think it improper for LDS believers to be too well educated, or too wise to take Jehovah's Witness teaching seriously?

[_why me]

The rest is up to debate as to truth and god. If there is a god, this god will not allow either book to be proven true unless a second coming is at hand. Thus, religionists are behind an eightball since atheists tend to be sign seekers in regards to religion.

On what basis do you determine that a God, if he did exist, would not let the Bible or Book of Mormon be proven true? You assert it as if it were fact, but it's entirely unsupported. God, if he exists, allowed Relativity to be discovered. He allowed approximate family trees of human evolution to be discovered. He allowed tectonic plate theory to be discovered. He allowed the germ theory of disease to be discovered. He allowed the smelting of iron, copper, and other metals to be discovered. He's allowed an awful lot of things to be discovered, explained, and understood. Many of the things we've discovered in the last couple hundred years are, for all practical purposes, beyond dispute. So tell me again why he wouldn't allow us to discover sufficient evidence to prove the Book of Mormon true? Why should accept that he would never allow for the Bible to be proven true, assuming God in fact existed, and the Bible were in fact true?

It doesn't seem to be in God's plan. The mircles of Christ have not been proven. I have seen no confirming witnesses. What we do have is a good summation of his works. The question that I always had was: The tradition was passed down through the early years after his death. Later they were put into a book of gospels. All this occured within a hundred years of Christ's death. Certainly these stories could have been verified if someone chose to do so. And I am sure that someone did check out the story. Perhaps this is proof that god exists. However, we have no written confirmation. But the stories have survived and have not been contradicted.

The Book of Mormon is different. We know that action was taking place around the Book of Mormon. People were involved in its publication. A story was told. Witnesses were found to verify the story. Is that a 'sign' of truth?

It does seem that god wants his existence verified conclusively. However, I do find the Fatima story interesting as told by the children of fatima and the miracle that occured to those children and to the people present at the time. Have you read it?

[_Chap]

It doesn't seem to be in God's plan.

How on earth would you know what God's plan is, assuming he exists and assuming he has a plan?

So far as I can see, you assume that your religious view is true, and then you deal with the obvious problem that there is no way of verifying it by erecting a defensive outwork - God does not (you claim) want the 'true faith' to be proved to be true. But this is based solely on the fact that you believe your view to be true, but know it cannot be proved. Thus you make an extra assumption on no basis of evidence whatsoever.

You seem to think this makes your case stronger in some way. But really, this is the celestial teapot story again:

ME: there is a celestial teapot in orbit round the earth

YOU: astronomers find no evidence for such an object

ME: ah, but the teapot will not allow its existence to be verified by scientific means, since it wants us to believe in it on the basis of faith.

If I said that, you would laugh at me. How can you write posts of the kind you do with a straight face?

[_why me]

It doesn't seem to be in God's plan.

How on earth would you know what God's plan is, assuming he exists and assuming he has a plan?

So far as I can see, you assume that your religious view is true, and then you deal with the obvious problem that there is no way of verifying it by erecting a defensive outwork - God does not (you claim) want the 'true faith' to be proved to be true. But this is based solely on the fact that you believe your view to be true, but know it cannot be proved. Thus you make an extra assumption on no basis of evidence whatsoever.

You seem to think this makes your case stronger in some way. But really, this is the celestial teapot story again:

ME: there is a celestial teapot in orbit round the earth

YOU: astronomers find no evidence for such an object

ME: ah, but the teapot will not allow its existence to be verified by scientific means, since it wants us to believe in it on the basis of faith.

If I said that, you would laugh at me. How can you write posts of the kind you do with a straight face?

Lets put all this in context. The thread started off with the bordom that is MAD. I tried to point out that trying to defend a true faith is not easy. Also, no one can prove Mormonism to be true and no can disprove Mormonism. And so, the endeavor is sort of fruitless. No one wins. Likewise for christianity. No one has proven christianity false. No one has proven the diviniy of Christ false. And yet, it cannot be proven that Christ was the Christ and the son of god.

Thus, any discussion about god and belief or unbelief would just resemble of hamster treadmill. Has science destroyed faith? No. Has science proven the dissolution of god? No. Nor will it. Mormonism depends on the Book of Mormon and Bible for validity. Other christians depend on the Bible for validity. Disprove those two books and you have destroyed christianity. Can you do it? No. Neither can christians such as Mormons prove god's existence. And here is MAD's problem. The debate always ends in a draw. And draws can be tiring.

[_Pokatator]

To the dear "Victim"....Why Me

I agree that everything does boil down to faith. But lumping the Bible and the Book of Mormon into the same category and calling them equal is absurd. I don't want to debate whether God can be proved or the miracles of Jesus can be proved, etc. But let's just try to realistic and take score of what can be proved.

On the Bible side:
Jesus can be proved to really to have existed
We have many codex's, numerous volumes of the Bible written, the Dead Sea Scrolls
Outside sources that at least Jesus walked the earth, Roman sources etc.
Physical evidence of places that existed in the writings

Does this prove Jesus was divine...no
But it proves that places and people existed as the Bible says

So, at least, there is some kind of score on the Bible's side.

What is the score for the Book of Mormon?

Absolutely......ZERO
Nothing collaborates the Book of Mormon except the evidence of a 19th century writing of a novel and it's witnesses. In other words, ZERO.

You can't put the Book of Mormon in the same category as equal to the Bible, both are a leap of faith...true. But the Book of Mormon is beyond a quantum leap.

[_Runtu]

why me's "speculation" mantra is an extension of the common apologist tactic of stating that there's an evidentiary stalemate (enough evidence to make either side work), as if it's just a matter of deciding which evidence to accept. The problem is that, at least for the Book of Mormon, there is no evidentiary stalemate. The evidence clearly indicates that the book is a 19th-century work; as you said, the evidence that it is of ancient origin amounts to bupkis.

If it were not so, we wouldn't see the approach of the apologists, which is to rationalize away objections in an effort to make the Book of Mormon plausible. Even the suggestion that it's plausible is at this point mere wishful thinking.