Mormon REVERENCE FOR JOSEPH SMITH

[_JAK]

JAK

I have found that people such as you generally don’t understand that three-word phrase. You have never addressed it nor have others.

In my own words...

It means that if I state a thing without supplying proof, I think that my stating it makes it true.

As in "God talks to me"

In which case, I have asserted God without supplying proof of God. I assume God. I even assume that you assume God. I cannot in all intellectual honesty claim that God talks to me, if I haven't first established God. The claim that God talks to me is contingent on my first proving the existence of God. The Burden of Proof is on me to prove the existence of God by providing empirical evidence for my positive claim. If I am able to do so, I still have to prove that God talks to me. Otherwise I am using...

truth by assertion

(No applause please)

Jersey Girl
:-)

A quibble. Wouldn't God talking to you be evidence for God?

How do you know it's God?

Jersey Girl

It is different from mortal communication. My brain also doesn't work like that on it's own. Plus the communicator told me it was God.

Nehor stated:
It is different from mortal communication. My brain also doesn't work like that on it's own. Plus the communicator told me it was God.

Nehor, you continue to merely make claims to Jersey Girl. I have no idea who or what “the communicator” is. However, I strongly suspect it is some person who ALSO makes claims that he/she has special powers to see that which is not there. That is, the person makes it up and plays on you, Nehor to feed you some doctrine (claimed truth).

I suspect it. Can you confirm it? Who or what is “the communicator”? You, my good man, should be skeptical.

This is not an effort to interfere with Jersey Girls analysis. I hope she’ll understand that. Rather, I am adding to what she has stated and asked.

JAK

[_JAK]

Nehor

People are still saying I'm a sock-puppet? Of who?

I still don't know what kind of evidence you what JAK and how you intend to hold the reality of God up to skeptical review. If you have no idea on how to test a fact saying that it is false based on that alone is kinda ridiculous.

Nehor,

In the above exchanges, you state that God told you something. Later when challenged, you say that you would know better whether or not you talk to God.

Do you see anything wrong in that exchange?

Just begin with that.

Jersey Girl

No, I see no difficulty. If I didn't know better than anyone else whether I talk to God it follows that I would be most fit to say that God told me something.

Let us clear our brains from all clutter and concentrate on just those two statements. Consider this an intro to your current online course in which you pinpoint inconsistency in your thinking. ;-)

Okay, let's look at the two statements with bold emphasis:

In the above exchanges, you state that God told you something.

Later when challenged, you say that you would know better whether or not you talk to God.

Do you see it now?

Jersey Girl

A very fine question! We might ask, How did the Muslims who brought down the World Trade Center know it was a command from God?

After that accomplished deed, there were many (so called) radical Muslims who declared: “God is Great” as a testimony to the aid/assistance/help of God in the destruction of the WTC.

It is likely that few Christians agreed with that God claim. But, there were some. For example Jerry Falwell said that attack was God’s punishment to America for departing God’s commandments.

It was also Pat Robertson’s claim that Katrina was God’s punishment for America’s sinful ways in New Orleans with gambling, drinking, and other immoralities.

So, God “talks” to Nehor. That’s his claim. But, Muslims (some Muslims certainly not all and Muslims don’t agree on what God says}, some Muslims regard the WTC as a tragedy of the mis-guided as much as do most Americans.

This leaves us with a variety of claims as to what God says and to whom.

Nehor claims. Radical Muslims claim. And the claims are that God is talking, AND they are hearing GOD.

Nehor would likely claim the Muslims have a false God. But, how does Nehor know that?

He does not. He merely claims it -- just as radical Muslims also merely claim: God told them!

There is no question that the Methodists claim that God talks to them. And God (an invention of humans) does not talk the same way with the same message as the claimed God “talks” to Nehor or others.

JAK

[Guest]

Nehor

People are still saying I'm a sock-puppet? Of who?

I still don't know what kind of evidence you what JAK and how you intend to hold the reality of God up to skeptical review. If you have no idea on how to test a fact saying that it is false based on that alone is kinda ridiculous.

Nehor,

In the above exchanges, you state that God told you something. Later when challenged, you say that you would know better whether or not you talk to God.

Do you see anything wrong in that exchange?

Just begin with that.

Jersey Girl

No, I see no difficulty. If I didn't know better than anyone else whether I talk to God it follows that I would be most fit to say that God told me something.

Suppose someone else claimed that God told them something, anything directly contrary to what you claim that God told you? How would you counter their claim?

I suspect you would do it by claiming that their view, their perception, their God was false. You might use different words, but that would be the context of how you would likely respond. After all, if God told YOU one thing and God told someone else a very different thing, there is a dilemma.

You could claim multiple gods telling different people different things.

Or, you could claim someone is lying. Or, you could claim that God has changed his mind (a clear anthropomorphic invention of God).

Historical evidence strongly suggests that God inventions are subject to the civilization and cultural environment of the time and the place. Your Joe Smith, was a protester. While Mormons don’t regard themselves as merely one of many groups, the fact (historically) is that is exactly what Mormons are -- a group clearly within the Protestant Reformation evolution.

From what I have read, some Mormons disagree with other Mormons on various issues. Polygamy is one obvious example. But there are others as well.

So even within Mormonism, there is a difference of opinion about what God (the invention) says.

JAK

[_moksha]

People are still saying I'm a sock-puppet? Of who?

[_JAK]

No, wrong again.

A man told you that God said so.

No, God told me that man was telling me what God said so.

You are indeed a joke, Nehor. You pontificate. No evidence for God has been established. Absent that, you make up anything that pleases your emotions. Not only did God tell you nothing, you are a victim of Mormon indoctrination. You have no idea the extent to which you are under Mormon control.

There appears to be no hope for you. Your brain has been cooked. You’re a pathetic anti-intellectual in your God claims.

JAK

Okay JAK. I think I would know better than you whether I talk to God.

Nehor,

Your statement remains problematic. You make a claim. If you expect others to believe that claim, you are responsible for meeting burden of proof.

Your statement here is yet another claim about who knows.

You have claimed God. In addition, by implication and direct statement, you make further claims characterizing your God (in most of your posts).

If you would read my responses to Jersey Girl and her comments as well, it might be helpful assuming your intent is honest communication. Some person posting called you “a puppet.”

I don’t know your intent to be honest. That I respond gives you benefit of the doubt. The construction of god claims and later God claims, historically demonstrates the evolution of those claims. The Muslims who brought down the World Trade Center in New York were later identified as religious people who prayed to God.

I presume that was a different God than the one you claim.

However, you claim has no more validity than theirs. I feel quite sure you do not comprehend that. But, the Muslims present no more evidence for their God than you have presented for your God.

A claim for God is an extraordinary claim. If you claimed you have two eyes, and if I disputed that (assuming agreement on definition and meaning of “eye,” what would you do?

You would say: Look at me. What do you see in/on my face??.

Suppose further that my response was this:
I have talked to God and God tells me that you do not have two eyes. And I believe God when he (male of course) tells me that YOU do not have two eyes.

I don’t know how you would respond to that. But you might think me crazy. Or, you might tell me that my God was lying to me. You have other options.

When you claim to talk to God, you also claim God.

What’s the objective and skeptically reviewed evidence for your claims? You have presented none. Biblical scripts do not assist you. They are not reliable. They are contradictory. Further, biblical scripts are often claims absent evidence.

Your claim that you “talk to God” is not evidence that you do or that your claimed God exists. It’s an assertion. Hence, it’s truth by assertion.

I strongly recommend that you read:

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens.

Background on Author

JAK

People are still saying I'm a sock-puppet? Of who?

I still don't know what kind of evidence you what JAK and how you intend to hold the reality of God up to skeptical review. If you have no idea on how to test a fact saying that it is false based on that alone is kinda ridiculous.

Nehor,

Since it is you who makes a claim here, it is you who must provide evidence in support of your claim.

In addition to the burden of proof, you have taken on an additional challenge. You make extraordinary claim. For that claim to be taken seriously, required is extraordinary evidence.

What evidence can you offer for your claimed God? Keep in mind that merely a claim or an assertion does not constitute evidence.

If I make claim that a duck has been in my yard, what would you say?

You should say: Show me something of evidence for your claim.

I might show you duck eggs in a nest. We could do or have some qualified objective biologist do a test of the eggs. If the eggs are determined by objective testing to be duck eggs, I have provided evidence for my claim. I might also find feathers in the egg nest.

To what species do the feathers belong? If we determine they belong to some kind of duck, we have additional evidence for the claim.

Of course when we sight a duck in the yard, all the other evidence fits and the claim has strength of evidence.

However, God claims as you have made them lack anything of merit. You evade responsibility by further advancing additional claim (to the effect) that we cannot view any evidence.

God is a doctrinal assertion used by ancient religions. We can trace (to some extent) the evolution and emergence of various religious God doctrines. We can also trace (to some extent) various doctrines for multiple gods.

Early man (prehistoric) left us no evidence that he was religious at all. Prehistoric man lacked language and the capacity to record that language. Language evolved.

For example, there was never an instant English language. The English language continues to evolve and add words. Consider all the terms the space age has added to the English language. Consider all the words technology in general has added to the English language. If you had spoken to someone 150 years ago about a “computer,” that person would have had no idea what you were talking about.

If you had spoken to someone 150 years ago about a “jet airplane” which could travel at hundreds of miles per hour, that person would have thought you crazy. I am demonstrating for you the evolution of language. Old English gave way to Middle English which gave way to Modern English (that which is used today). Many words in the English language come from Latin. Others from German, etc. And the English language which we use today is a product of language evolution.

Religions are structures of doctrine which have evolved and have changed over time through interpretations and translations of scripts written before airplanes or computers.

Biblical writers were ignorant of much that we know today. They knew nothing of germs or viruses (for example). Biblical writers don’t describe “germs” or “viruses.” They were also ignorant of all the life forms prior to their own experience. The dinosaur disappeared from the earth as a living organism 65,000,000 years ago.

Humans who constructed religious inventions knew nothing of the evolution which preceded them.

God and gods (plural) were inventions thousands of years ago. While the intent may have been to explain, early humans lacked genuine knowledge to explain. The invention of gods was sufficient for a time. Early scientists (they were not called scientists) challenged the doctrine of gods. Disease from germs was not in the least understood by myth-makers of religious doctrines. But, today, we know about germs. We know about disease. And thanks to medical science and science at large, we can treat and/or cure disease which was once fatal.

That science is still emerging. Science, unlike religion, is self-correcting. That is to say, science (scientists) are continuously skeptical of conclusions. That skepticism leads to additional discovery.

Religion is not interested in information. God claims tend to be static and rigid (as you have implied in your comments). Had we left medicine to religion, we would have no cures for disease.

Religious mentality is non-inquiring. In addition, religious organizations discourage intellectually insightful questioning.

Religion substitutes truth by assertion for discovery by investigation. As a result, religion(s) is a drag on information and discovery. The mentality of God did it or God said... is an inhibitor to discovery by intellectually honest investigation.

As a result of your indoctrination (in religion), you appear to parrot what you have been told.

Now you stated:
“If you have no idea on how to test a fact saying that it is false based on that alone is kinda ridiculous.”

Keep clear that it is you who are making God claims. The burden of proof lies with you to provide evidence for your claims. Absent such evidence, your claims should be disregarded.

I have asked that you provide evidence for your claims. Rather than provide that, you merely make additional assertions. That is not evidence for your claims.

My points with you have been that many make God claims. I can document that.

Second, the various God claims are not in agreement or consistent. I can document that. Muslims (who claim God), have a very different invention of God than you have.

You have produced no more evidence for your claims than Muslims have produced for theirs. They, like you, employ the evasive truth by assertion. Hence, Muslims can assert anything they like -- just as you can assert anything you like.

Neither establishes a claim by assertion.

I could ask many questions related to your assertion of God.

You have characterized your God as male.

How do you know that? If your God has gender, what does “he” look like? What race (of the human races I presume) is your God?

How do you know (whatever your assertion is) that?

Why is your notion of God superior to the notion of another religious notion (even another Christian notion)?

I don’t expect you to answer these rhetorical questions, Nehor. Just think about them. If you can rely only on the doctrine/dogma of your denomination, you have a weak case. Why? It’s because other denominations do exactly the same thing as they claim that their doctrine is superior or more nearly truly Christian than any other doctrine.

That is, they use the same device which you use -- truth by assertion.

Perhaps this clarifies to some degree for you. If not, ask a question or several.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK,

When I posted these two statements:

In the above exchanges, you state that God told you something.

Later when challenged, you say that you would know better whether or not you talk to God.

I wanted to point out what is that called? Oh, now I remember "sloppy thinking". Now, I haven't follwed all of these exchanges but, if I read it right (and I could be a sloppy reader) in

Statement 1: Nehor has claimed that God told him something.

and in

Statement 2: He is replying to challenge of that statement based on whether or not he talks to God.

Burden of proof aside, Nehor is attempting to justify his statement that God told him something by saying that he talks to God.

If God told him something then he is the receiver. He is attempting to justify his position as receiver by making claim as transmitter.

In comparing the two statements, I was trying to demonstrate a flaw in his thinking. It may only be a small flaw but I thought it was a good place to start. Every journey begins with one step. In this case, one baby step.

Have I made sense?

Jersey Girl

[_JAK]

JAK,

When I posted these two statements:

In the above exchanges, you state that God told you something.

Later when challenged, you say that you would know better whether or not you talk to God.

I wanted to point out what is that called? Oh, now I remember "sloppy thinking". Now, I haven't follwed all of these exchanges but, if I read it right (and I could be a sloppy reader) in

Statement 1: Nehor has claimed that God told him something.

and in

Statement 2: He is replying to challenge of that statement based on whether or not he talks to God.

Burden of proof aside, Nehor is attempting to justify his statement that God told him something by saying that he talks to God.

If God told him something then he is the receiver. He is attempting to justify his position as receiver by making claim as transmitter.

In comparing the two statements, I was trying to demonstrate a flaw in his thinking. It may only be a small flaw but I thought it was a good place to start. Every journey begins with one step. In this case, one baby step.

Have I made sense?

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl,

I am not sure what you’re saying here to me. I have read your post several times.

My comments to Nehor were extensive and as detailed as I felt could be made in this forum. I think I should wait for more rather than repeating myself.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK,

Let me say it this way. He was using his position as transmitter to defend his position as receiver.

Burdern of proof, aside. Had he stated "God told me" and proceeded to give examples of how God "tells" him, that would have made more sense to me. Instead, he is attempting to support the claim that "God talks to me" by asserting that he talks to God.

And still, he would need to prove "God".

Let me try that one more time:

1. JAK posts to me.
2. Prove it.
3. I should know whether or not I post to JAK.

Is that a logical fallacy?

It's okay with me if you choose not to continue your exchanges with me here.

Jersey Girl

[_The Nehor]

People are still saying I'm a sock-puppet? Of who?

Brilliant :)

[_The Nehor]

[color=brown]The first sentence is a subjective judgment -- not a fact. We have clear evidences for love of someone. We can observe a multiplicity of behaviors which can be used as evidence for love. A marriage which lasts 50 years is evidence for love. But more importantly the events day-by-day, the conduct, the demonstration of concern, care, interest, support, etc. -- all these day-by-day are evidence (over 50 years) for love. While there is a difference between proof and evidence, the two are closely related. Evidence is the building material for proof. I’ll not attempt the particulars in distinction here, but could later.

So if love is detected because of the effects it has, couldn't God be found the same way?