Invitation to Challange the LDS (mormon) Religion

[Kakumei]

Quote by: Hurt Well, if he wants to say that the mormon religion instills better values than atheism and agnosticism, I'd like to know where he's coming from.

Well, the devorce rate in our church between two members is like, 10% and in the society as a whole has a devorce rate of like 75%. I do like to think thats a good thing.
When it comes to morals, I watch my language, I respect women, elders, and everyone for that matter. I dont activly try and cause problems, infact, I try to be the peace maker. If I see something that I find absolutly discusting in my eyes, I stop it. I when to a friends house and her uncle was trying to rape her, you bet your life on the fact that I sure as heck beat the snot out of him, and im not sure many people would even report that crap to the police.
Im just sayin, I think there is a difference, even if its slight.

[Kakumei]

[quote=rez;505420]


Mormonism did not have an positive effect on the world. People and their own personal desires and convictions had a positive effect on the world.


Sorry sir, but people make claims and don't back them up with reasons I am going to laugh at them.



QUOTE]
Sadly, you dont even realize what us Mormons do. When hurricane Katrina hit, we got there before FEMA did, and I went there with a group of my buddies with my church and we helped out doing everything we could to help people out the best we could.
I can back up many claims with reasons, laughing at them shows that you dont understand them, or sadly, cant.

[Kakumei]

Quote by: RealRockingham it has some negative aspects- its attitude to homosexuality comes to mind-

If I may ask, what aspects are you talking about?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Flip Jackson Alright here is some more. Though in the past, people often claimed that Book or Mormon ideas are not supported by archaeological finds, such criticisms have died in recent years as new finds have come to light. Your Anti-mormon site is behind the times a bit. Here are a few of the things that have been found in recent years: ancient horses, metal tablets in other parts of the Americas, locations described in the Book of Mormon, and names that were thought to have been made up by Joseph Smith.

Bull.

Support this or retract it. There is absolutely ZERO evidence to support the fairy tale "history" of the Americas that Smith invented. Provide a link in your next post or we'll consider the matter settled.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Flip Jackson Then when answers come, they run and hide. Many of the questions have been addressed, but obviously, people like Rez and Zhavric have no interest in actually debating or looking into answers. They just throw out random garbage mixed with insults against people they don't agree with.

I'm sorry, but did the guy who believes in the self-fathering cosmic Jewish zombie that teleported to North America on the word of a con man just accuse me of not being interested in actually debating or looking for answers? If I sound a bit short with you, it's for good reason. Most of the free (and not free) world believes in bronze age nonsense or some derivation there of. I'd have a sense of humor about it if it were actually something that you guys recognized as the farce it is.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to support anything you stated. Exmormon.com has a laundry list of sources. Where are yours?

[Flip Jackson]

I refuse to debate any more with someone who is so arrogant and demeaning. You obviously hvae no idea what Mormons believe, nor do you want to know. You just like mud slinging.

Maybe you didn't notice, but you didn't give sources either. Do you really think I'm going to use my time searching through exmormon.org when all you did was copy and paste a bunch of stuff? You used an anti-mormon site, so here's a pro-mormon site. If you really want answers. You can search through it, just as you expect me to do with exmormon.org.

Maxwell Institute - FAQ

There is a difference between having a sense of humor, and having common courtesy, which you lack. You've shown that you have no desire to actually learn anything about mormons, as you haven't specified any specific mormon idea that bothers you. You pasted a bunch of anti-mormon junk and expect it all answered to your satisfaction.

I answered many of your questions. Here is a site for you to look at. I'm done with this thread since nothing I could say to you would change your bigotted nature.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Flip Jackson Maxwell Institute - FAQ

Congratulations on attempting to support your argument. Unfortunately, you've presented information from a Mormon source which has a vested / biased interest in proving the claims made. There's no peer review in any part of your link by any credible non-mormon scholars. Effectively, this is like claiming, "Smoking is healthy!" and then proceeding to back up that claim by presenting "studies" from Big Tobacco companies that have never been reviewed by anyone not on Big Tobacco's payroll.

Do you have any compelling evidence or should we conclude that you're unable to support your assertion?

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Zhavric Bull. Support this or retract it. There is absolutely ZERO evidence to support the fairy tale "history" of the Americas that Smith invented. Provide a link in your next post or we'll consider the matter settled.

"We'll"? You will, maybe

Quote by: Zhavric I'm sorry, but did the guy who believes in the self-fathering cosmic Jewish zombie that teleported to North America on the word of a con man just accuse me of not being interested in actually debating or looking for answers? If I sound a bit short with you, it's for good reason. Most of the free (and not free) world believes in bronze age nonsense or some derivation there of. I'd have a sense of humor about it if it were actually something that you guys recognized as the farce it is. Also, I'm still waiting for you to support anything you stated. Exmormon.com has a laundry list of sources. Where are yours?

Much of the supernatural belief cannot be debated- afterall, you cannot technically call it impossible. Can you PROVE that they weren't teleported to Africa? However, you can debate the evidence of it, such as theoretical signs of a state in North America, seeing as that would leave physical proof, the only real method of debating history when their is only one literary account of the time(in this case the book of Mormon).

Quote by: Kakumei If I may ask, what aspects are you talking about?

If I remember correctly, Mormonism (like most faiths) rather detests homosexuality.... well, not so much homosexuality, as acting upon that desire.

Still, the divorce rate says something

[Zhavric]

Quote by: RealRockingham Much of the supernatural belief cannot be debated- afterall, you cannot technically call it impossible.

Oh GTFO with that. OF COURSE it's impossible. Calling impossible things possible is intellectually dishonest and an abuse of the english language. Do not buy into this "anything is possible" garbage. When people make claims that are impossible at face value, like cosmic Jewish zombies teleporting from the middle east to the ass end of nowhere America, they have to support them. Nor can they rely on "faith". Either Jesus teleported to N.A. or he didn't. One or the other. Not both. He didn't teleport for you and not teleport for me. That, sir, is a scientific difference. If there were any evidence, it would be to science that we turn to prove it. In the lack of evidence, we have to look at what is proven, what's being claimed, and how much of what's proven the claim contradicts.

Can you PROVE that they weren't teleported to Africa?

Yes. I can show you the amount of energy it would take to move one particle from point A to point B. I had a friend explain this to me in college. To teleport a 200 lb man from one side of a room to another would take energy on par with the daily output of our sun. You show me where that energy came from to teleport people, and then I'll start to take the claim seriously.

However, you can debate the evidence of it, such as theoretical signs of a state in North America, seeing as that would leave physical proof, the only real method of debating history when their is only one literary account of the time(in this case the book of Mormon).

Okay, look. You need to stop allowing for this ridiculous special pleading for religion, man. Why are you debating so dishonestly? If I said to you, "I teleported to the moon and back today. Prove I didn't." You'd laugh at me and rightly so. The claim is impossible. Not unknown. Not possible. Impossible. Without evidence, you're correct to dismiss it... just as you'd be correct to dismiss the notion that 1+1=5. So, why do you adopt this different set of rules for religion? Why is cosmic Jewish zombie teleporting from the mid east to America somehow less laughable than me telelporting back and forth from the moon?

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Zhavric Oh GTFO with that. OF COURSE it's impossible. Calling impossible things possible is intellectually dishonest and an abuse of the english language. Do not buy into this "anything is possible" garbage. When people make claims that are impossible at face value, like cosmic Jewish zombies teleporting from the middle east to the ass end of nowhere America, they have to support them. Nor can they rely on "faith". Either Jesus teleported to N.A. or he didn't. One or the other. Not both. He didn't teleport for you and not teleport for me. That, sir, is a scientific difference. If there were any evidence, it would be to science that we turn to prove it. In the lack of evidence, we have to look at what is proven, what's being claimed, and how much of what's proven the claim contradicts. Yes. I can show you the amount of energy it would take to move one particle from point A to point B. I had a friend explain this to me in college. To teleport a 200 lb man from one side of a room to another would take energy on par with the daily output of our sun. You show me where that energy came from to teleport people, and then I'll start to take the claim seriously. Okay, look. You need to stop allowing for this ridiculous special pleading for religion, man. Why are you debating so dishonestly? If I said to you, "I teleported to the moon and back today. Prove I didn't." You'd laugh at me and rightly so. The claim is impossible. Not unknown. Not possible. Impossible. Without evidence, you're correct to dismiss it... just as you'd be correct to dismiss the notion that 1+1=5. So, why do you adopt this different set of rules for religion? Why is cosmic Jewish zombie teleporting from the mid east to America somehow less laughable than me telelporting back and forth from the moon?

I'm not saying that I believe that it happened, or believe that it could of happened, only that I can't prove that it didn't.

I don't adopt special standards for religion...you say it as if the standard scientific standards are proven, when they are anything but. You are, in short, making the assumption that the Mormon God, if he exists, would be constrained by '"energy"

" Either Jesus teleported to N.A. or he didn't. One or the other. Not both. He didn't teleport for you and not teleport for me. "
Yes, but I would have to be arrogant to say it was impossible that it happened. I'm not saying its scientifically possible, but as an agnostic I'm not to certain of science either. One or the other did happen, but I can't claim to know, as opposed to having an opinion on it.

"That, sir, is a scientific difference. If there were any evidence, it would be to science that we turn to prove it."
You believe in the accuracy of science. I do also, to some extent, though I doubt the capacity of humans to comprehend it. But that is just that, a belief. How can you KNOW that a God isn't making science up to test our faith?

And don't say it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to YOU, but that is an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

You may have teleported to moon, and science may be utter bullshit. I can't prove its not so. I can have an opinion that its even less likely then the Scientoligist story, but cant prove it. I could give scientific logic to disprove it, but if you don't believe scientific logic to be definitive, or the faith doesn't for that matter, then the belief isn't disproved. Simple as that.

Every set of beleifs and opinions, including yours, is built upon a series of assumptions that may be wrong.

[wyoguy]

I've lived the majority of my life in Northern Mormonland (Wyoming) and have made serious attempts to understand the group. My first wife and mother of my 2 oldest children was raised Mormon and insisted that I recieve teaching in her beliefs before she would agree to marry me (even though she was already pregnant with our first at the time). When this whole tragic episode took place, I couldn't have cared less if she was Bhudist, Baptist or Bonkers. I loved the woman and did what I could to appease her misgivings. I never bought into the Mormon clique. I went through the motions for my wife but the whole idea seemed so preposterous that I just couldn't really bite on the hook. I was, at the time, a true atheist's atheist. Dr. Zhavric would have personally carried me to the throne of non-belief to have me crowned king. I shot down theists with a spiteful glint of self-satisfaction in my eye and exerted the full force of my superior intellect whenever possible in order to further my own personal view that organized religion was the bane of all humanity and the opiate of the masses.

Within the last decade, a major change happened in my life that led me to cast aside virtually every preconcieved notion I ever had about God, the universe, and my position in relation to both. It was then that I seriously started studying LDS history and doctrine because my 2 daughters were being raised up in that environment almost exclusively (I wasn't a very good dad). I ran across all the arguments that Zhavric included in his first post and thought them to be quite damning to the LDS position. But the fact is, atheists are able to shoot similar holes in my own faith (Reformed Protestant). Not nearly as glaring as those with the Mormons but holes none-the-less. Thusly, I have had to concede that even though there are parts of scripture that I don't fully understand and continue to believe anyway, this probably holds true for Mormons, atheists, or what have you. People are rarely swayed once they enter into a debate/arguement. They've got their minds made up before they even touch their keyboards.

My comment to the LDS faithful that are posting on this thread is this: What are you going to do about your sin? Every single religion that I've run across (save one) states in no uncertain terms that humans are responsible to earn their righteous standing before their creator. Mormons, Roman Catholics, Muslim, any religion you care to name (save one) are all works-based. The bar's been set at perfection. How are you going to pass inspection clothed in your own righteousness?

My comment to the atheists posting on this thread is this: What are you going to do about your sin (other than denying that it exists)? Even if you're bordering on agnosticism, where did this notion that there will be some enormous set of balances on which your good deeds will be weighed against the bad come from?

The wheels came off my car as I approached a blind corner and, dazed, confused, I started walking along my way. As I rounded the corner I came across a gorge, over which, was the wrecked remains of a bridge. Feeling very thankful for my misfortune that I had so recently cursed, I set about the morally responsible task of warning those approaching of their impending doom.

I am walking back the way I came, jumping, hollering and I am not alone. Those with me are regarded as I am... foolish, ignorant, definitely not to be taken seriously. We walk, we warn, we decline the offers of rides and we'll continue to do so until the bridge gets fixed but I haven't noticed any construction equiment headed that way and the total lack of traffic moving in our direction leads me to believe that it hasn't been repaired from the other side.

[Jack]

My comment to the atheists posting on this thread is this: What are you going to do about your sin (other than denying that it exists)? Even if you're bordering on agnosticism, where did this notion that there will be some enormous set of balances on which your good deeds will be weighed against the bad come from?

So I'm being denied the use of a practical and logical answer? I won't be forced into using some less than adequate rationale. Since I don't believe in "sins", what else can I do but deny its existence? Sin is a belief and term particular to moralists and theists. I am neither and I don't see where the notion of sin has any place in my philosophical life.

I'm not sure of the origin of the scales as a symbol, but I'm willing to bet my soul it was made up by a human.

To answer the question you didn't ask, I have a conscience. The life factors and education that form a conscience are unique to each of us. The more life you've lived (not just existed) and the more education you get (in school and out), in other words the older and wiser you get, the more you can depend on your conscience. I may not always listen to mine, but I always know I should.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: RealRockingham I'm not saying that I believe that it happened, or believe that it could of happened, only that I can't prove that it didn't.

Then I submit that my worldview is superior to yours because, to you, the word "impossible" is interchangeable with "possible"... which is dumb. We have these words for a reason nor are we particularly stumped by what should go into which category.

I don't adopt special standards for religion...you say it as if the standard scientific standards are proven, when they are anything but. You are, in short, making the assumption that the Mormon God, if he exists, would be constrained by '"energy"

Give us this day, our daily straw man.

I am not saying "the mormon god is energy". I challenge you to find where I stated or even implied such nonsense. There is no god. What I did claim is that for Jesus to teleport from the mid east to America, it would take a tremendous amount of energy. As in more energy than is found on the Earth. So, claiming, "Jesus teleported to America" is exactly the same as claiming "There's more energy on the Earth than on the sun"... which is false.

Not possible. Not unknown.

False.

Yes, but I would have to be arrogant to say it was impossible that it happened.

Oh, GTFO with that crap. Calling a false thing false is honest. If that's how you define arrogant than I humbly recommend you cease and desist your abuse of the English language.

How can you KNOW that a God isn't making science up to test our faith?

Because I have an education.

And don't say it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to YOU, but that is an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

Nope. You're wrong.

You see, I'm using logic. Logic isn't a matter of opinion. It's fact. Calling it opinion in absolutely no way dispels it. You need to offer a counter-argument... one that doesn't boil down to, "It's arrogant to say 'one plus one doesn't equal three'. That's just your opinion. That's just your belief. We can't know for sure..."

You may have teleported to moon, and science may be utter bullshit.

Once again, I submit that my worldview is superior to yours. You clearly have no grasp of what's possible versus what's not possible.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Zhavric 1)Then I submit that my worldview is superior to yours because, to you, the word "impossible" is interchangeable with "possible"... which is dumb. We have these words for a reason nor are we particularly stumped by what should go into which category. Give us this day, our daily straw man. 2)I am not saying "the mormon god is energy". I challenge you to find where I stated or even implied such nonsense. There is no god. What I did claim is that for Jesus to teleport from the mid east to America, it would take a tremendous amount of energy. As in more energy than is found on the Earth. So, claiming, "Jesus teleported to America" is exactly the same as claiming "There's more energy on the Earth than on the sun"... which is false. Not possible. Not unknown. False. 3)Oh, GTFO with that crap. Calling a false thing false is honest. If that's how you define arrogant than I humbly recommend you cease and desist your abuse of the English language. 4)Because I have an education. 5)Nope. You're wrong. You see, I'm using logic. Logic isn't a matter of opinion. It's fact. Calling it opinion in absolutely no way dispels it. You need to offer a counter-argument... one that doesn't boil down to, "It's arrogant to say 'one plus one doesn't equal three'. That's just your opinion. That's just your belief. We can't know for sure..." 6)Once again, I submit that my worldview is superior to yours. You clearly have no grasp of what's possible versus what's not possible.

1)No. I recognise its scientifically and "logically" impossible. What I DONT recognise is that science and logic are undebatably correct. In which case, if they are incorrect(though I BELIEVE, but don't KNOW that they are correct), then it being impossible in their terms becomes irrelevant.

So, please specify when you say something is impossible, impossible according to WHAT world view? Your own? You MAY be wrong, and if you can't accept that you are narrow minded and set in your ways.

2) You misinterpreted me. I was saying that, if the Mormon God was real, their WOULDN'T need to be more energy on the Earth then the sun to transport them. The Mormon God, according to faith, is not constrained by science. God DEFINES reality according to faith. You seem incapable of comprehending an even slight possibilty that science might be incorrect. I, myself, beleive largely what you beleive in regards to the universe. But I'm not so arrogant as to not accept the possibility that my perspective is wrong.

3)Prove its false. You cant KNOW it is, only have the OPINION that it is. Granted, you can't technically KNOW anything other then that you are self-aware on some level...though you can be pretty damn sure of some things. Think Matrix. Then PROVE its not so. I'm not saying I believe it is like that, only that I CAN'T PROVE that it isn't. Recognize that nothing is certain, then you will appear far less obnoxious, and be able to understand the religious POV.

4)An education that tells you to be certain of some things that may be wrong outof neccesity of employment and the limitations of time. Education isn't intended to teach you the truth about things, its intended to teach you what you need to think and how to act to get employed, even if its not teaching you whats strictly true.

5) Your using YOUR logic. It makes logical sense to others. Logic is to quite some extent a product of the individual. Logic and science aren't synonomous.

6) I have a grasp of what is scientifically possible, and in everyday life subscribe to it. But we are talking theoretically, are we not?

And I see the word "superior". Please define the word before you use it.

6)

[wyoguy]

Quote by: Jack Since I don't believe in "sins", what else can I do but deny its existence? Sin is a belief and term particular to moralists and theists. I am neither and I don't see where the notion of sin has any place in my philosophical life.

Then you shouldn't mind if I sin against you.

I'm not sure of the origin of the scales as a symbol, but I'm willing to bet my soul it was made up by a human.

Damn straight

To answer the question you didn't ask, I have a conscience. The life factors and education that form a conscience are unique to each of us. The more life you've lived (not just existed) and the more education you get (in school and out), in other words the older and wiser you get, the more you can depend on your conscience. I may not always listen to mine, but I always know I should.

Says who? Whenabouts do you figure we evolved this notion of good and evil (conscience)? How in the world do you suppose that this evolution was profitable for mankind? How ultra-modern and advanced are we, truly, if these same questions remain unanswered today by science when they were covered in their entirety 4000 years ago?

Point is.... time to face facts (love to throw that one at the atheists;]). The natural aquisition of the knowlege of good and evil is now, and always will be, unanswerable by the tenets of atheism. I love the bible, not only because it is positively dripping with truth, but it resolutely answers the questions that have plagued my mind all my life and does so by painting an inglorious picture of humankind's past. Every example (save one) held up as a hero of faith is also punctuated by glimpses of typical human weakness. Even to the point of David having an opportunity to assasinate Saul while he's in a cave taking a whiz. If that's fiction, it is a literary devise that wasn't reinvented for thousands of years.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: wyoguy Then you shouldn't mind if I sin against you.

WTF? He meant sin, as far as I'm aware, in the "god condemned" sense. He doesn't beleive anything is god condemned. That doesn't mean he wants things that the religious SAY are god condemned done against him.

Simply, hes not denying "sins" are "bad"(or at least some of them, frex he wouldn't see homosexuality as a sin), only why this is so. Beyond that, its semantics- whether the term sin refers only to god condemned things or not. He obviously thinks the TERM only refers to god-condemned things, and as God doesn't exist, there are no sins.

Doesn't equate to his denying things you might see as "sins" as being bad.

Or were you joking when you made that comment

[Jack]

The natural aquisition of the knowlege of good and evil is now, and always will be, unanswerable by the tenets of atheism.

That's not a fact, just an opinion voiced by those who only accept their own narrow religious orthodoxy as "the truth". Societies have as much if not more to do with our forming rules of behavior than do religious beliefs.

If you want to pose that opinion as fact, you'll need to support the notion with more than just a contention. Any evidence of that being the case?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: RealRockingham 1)No. I recognise its scientifically and "logically" impossible. What I DONT recognise is that science and logic are undebatably correct.

Then embrace intellectually honesty. Accept that proven things are the way they are until evidence comes along to challenge them. Science and logic aren't a set of arbitrary assertions that are ready to change at the drop of a hat. They're proven facts and we have a very specific way of upgrading our knowledge. We don't simply discard things nor do we ignore what's proven because someone feels it might be disproven later. This is what makes context so important. For example:

"Man will never be able to teleport" is unknown.

"Man cannot teleport right now" is true.

So, please specify when you say something is impossible, impossible according to WHAT world view? Your own? You MAY be wrong, and if you can't accept that you are narrow minded and set in your ways.

It's no good name calling. No amount of ad homs on your part will convince any intellectually honest person that 1+1=3, nor is it "narrow minded" to call a spade a spade and point out that impossible things are impossible. Nor is it any great mystery as to why teleporting accross continents is impossible. I am truly in awe of volconvo's ability to draw individuals who struggle with this basic concept. You are certainly among friends (the ones that haven't been banned, anyway).

2) You misinterpreted me. I was saying that, if the Mormon God was real, their WOULDN'T need to be more energy on the Earth then the sun to transport them.

That's what's known as a tremendous cop out. We wouldn't accept that sort of reasoning in any walk of science or academia. Why should we accept it here? "If this monumentally silly thing is real then it allows for this other impossible thing to not be impossible." You'd be laughed out of any classroom you tried to present that to and rightly so. Why, then, make a special pleading for religion? Remember that god, itself, is a claim that requires support. Effectively, your argument reads, "It's possible to teleport to the moon and back with the help of my super-moon-teleporter-chicken-apparatus."

3)Prove its false.

*sigh*

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

5) Your using YOUR logic. It makes logical sense to others. Logic is to quite some extent a product of the individual.

Absolutely false. Logic is 100% universal. What's true for me is true for you unless you're changing the context.

Logic and science aren't synonomous.

Thank you, Fonceai. To be sure, logic and science go hand in hand. Science requires logic and reason and logic requires empirically gathered data to go beyond a raw abstract.

6) I have a grasp of what is scientifically possible, and in everyday life subscribe to it. But we are talking theoretically, are we not?

*sigh*

Fallacy: Special Pleading

You need to stop employing fallacies when you debate.