3 of 7
3
Mormons in Politics
Posted: 13 September 2012 03:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2012-08-11
toombaru - 13 September 2012 02:49 PM
TheCoolinator - 13 September 2012 01:07 PM
mormovies - 13 September 2012 11:13 AM

I think the newer the religion, the crazier.

I think your logic may be flawed on this assertion.  No one rationally adopts their religion, they accept if from their social environment on faith.  Therefore, I think you are right to fault a person who drops their existing religion in favor some other one (and that does describe many Mormons if we are to believe their assertions on their conversion rate) but as long as you are accepting the tradition that was handed down to you by your parents, I simply can’t see where we can allow for the weight of this historical tradition.


As a person who received a thorough religious indoctrination as a child, I can assure you that the Mormons begin at Genesis just like everybody else.  As a skeptic looking inward, Joseph Smith certainly has less credibilty than Mohammed or Jesus or Moses, but as a child learning ‘history’ you are at the mercy of your instructors.  But we are really splitting hairs here, because the outside skeptic looking in has to do a lot of work to describe the differences in the historical probablities of these several religious stories.  They are are so laughably improbable, we’re just weighing grains of sand at this point. 

 

The Cooinator wrote:
“As a skeptic looking inward, Joseph Smith certainly has less credibilty than Mohammed or Jesus or Moses…...”

toombaru:
Actually if you are comparing goofy thought, Joseph Smith is far more credible.
There is a vast amount of evidence that indicates that he was actual person.
There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Mohammed, Jesus or Moses ever lived.

I half agree.I think Smith is a little more credible because he was a real person, while there’s no evidence at all to believe Moses ever existed.  But not much more credibility, if we are to let arguments stand or fall on their own.  In that case, the claims of Smith or Moses, or Jesus or Moe (the latter two I do believe existed, though not as portrayed in scripture, of course) are all equally valid - in the form of Epic Fail, and equally so. 

Smith was the only one who we could say was more than semi-literate.  His writings haven’t had more changes made to them than there are words contained within.  I think we would say that his writings are less bastardized.  How much credibility that lends, I dunno.  L Ron wrote a lot.  Do I find him more credible?  No.  Not because I don’t know much about him, but because I do.

Good conversation, though.  What gives credibility, and what, exactly, should we be looking at?  The man or the message?

 

[ Edited: 13 September 2012 03:17 PM by Ice Monkey]
 Signature 

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
~ Hitch

I prefer the full-on embrace of reality to the spiritual masturbation that is religion.
~ S.A. Ladoucier

I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people
~ M. Teresa, Fruitcake of Calcutta

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2012 03:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

L Ron wrote a lot.  Do I find him more credible?  No.  Not because I don’t know much about him, but because I do.

>> Exactly.  That’s why Joseph Smith is LESS credible as a prophet than Jesus who we can’t even prove existed with hard evidence.  Also, the context of the times is important.  Rational, post-enlightenment people should know better.  The fact there are new cults always springing up and Islam is growing and getting stronger is sickening and disturbing and doesn’t make sense.  It’s 2012 and the need for religion should be waning.  I almost think that people that cling to the traditions of their cultures are the culprits.  It’s faith in culture more than faith in the supernatural.  I think a lot of modern day Christians are into religion-lite.  They practice their nonsense on Sunday for an hour and say they believe in god to pollsters and that’s IT!  They live in the 2012, they rarely practice let alone live a pre-historic or medieval lifestyle.  The Amish and Hasids are a whole other set of freaks…  I consider all religion insane and extreme religions extremely insane.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2012 03:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  140
Joined  2012-08-11
mormovies - 13 September 2012 03:40 PM

L Ron wrote a lot.  Do I find him more credible?  No.  Not because I don’t know much about him, but because I do.

>> Exactly.  That’s why Joseph Smith is LESS credible as a prophet than Jesus who we can’t even prove existed with hard evidence.  Also, the context of the times is important.  Rational, post-enlightenment people should know better.  The fact there are new cults always springing up and Islam is growing and getting stronger is sickening and disturbing and doesn’t make sense.  It’s 2012 and the need for religion should be waning.  I almost think that people that cling to the traditions of their cultures are the culprits.  It’s faith in culture more than faith in the supernatural.  I think a lot of modern day Christians are into religion-lite.  They practice their nonsense on Sunday for an hour and say they believe in god to pollsters and that’s IT!  They live in the 2012, they rarely practice let alone live a pre-historic or medieval lifestyle.  The Amish and Hasids are a whole other set of freaks…  I consider all religion insane and extreme religions extremely insane.

Ah, I get it.  You’ve been watching the news again.  Depressing, confusing, and infuriating. 

I’ve been wondering why so many Muslims seem to be addicted to violence.  I think it’s because so many aren’t allowed to protest anything other than a small handful of things that when an opportunity comes along, they purge. 

Like that kid in our grade 4 class that was having a crappy homelife and had a fuse that was short and easily lit.  A great kid at heart, but he’s still not coming to my birthday party, unless my mom insists.

At any rate, I’ve become confused in this original thread.  Are we discussing the credibility of the writings or the writers, or am I the only one who sees a distinct difference?

 Signature 

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
~ Hitch

I prefer the full-on embrace of reality to the spiritual masturbation that is religion.
~ S.A. Ladoucier

I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people
~ M. Teresa, Fruitcake of Calcutta

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2012 09:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2012-08-29
mormovies - 13 September 2012 01:20 PM

“No one rationally adopts their religion, they accept if from their social environment on faith.”

This is just not true.  We can reject all, 100% of our culture if we wish to.

You missed my point.  Rejecting religion is always an option as you suggested.  More than that, it’s the logical consequence of reason.  Therefore, we must have another explanation for why any person would adopt a religion.  Whether you are 9 or 90, that reason is faith and it means you’ve accepted an assertion in the absence of adequate reason.  Of course, the wiser and more educated one becomes, the less excuse there is for making this error.


Therefore, by contending that it is more rational to accept an established religion than a newer one you are failing to appreciate the inherent irrationality of accepting any religion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2012 09:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2012-08-29
Ice Monkey - 13 September 2012 02:47 PM

I think that Mormonism appears even more moronic than other religions (no small feat!) because Mormons don’t have the excuse of “tradition” with which to defend their stupidity.

It is stupid to assert that “tradition” serves as an excuse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2012 09:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2012-08-29
toombaru - 13 September 2012 02:49 PM

There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Mohammed, Jesus or Moses ever lived.

Mohammed certainly lived.  Jesus, quite likely.  Moses, who knows?  Read Hitch in God is not Great - he goes into it in some detail.

Ice Monkey - 13 September 2012 03:15 PM

Smith was the only one who we could say was more than semi-literate.

Probably not.  There is so much obscurantism surrounding his biography it is difficult to tell what is apocryphal (sound familiar?) but most people agree that he had at least one very educated person assist in producing the manuscript.  He was the PR man, Oliver Cowdry and Marvin Harris are probably the authors of the prose. 


Also, if Jesus or Moses lived, they would probably qualify as the most literate since the one was a Rabbi and the other a Nobleman.  Although its clear that neither of them wrote any of the books that appear in the Bible. 

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 September 2012 10:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
TheCoolinator - 13 September 2012 09:45 PM
toombaru - 13 September 2012 02:49 PM

There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Mohammed, Jesus or Moses ever lived.

Mohammed certainly lived.  Jesus, quite likely.  Moses, who knows?  Read Hitch in God is not Great - he goes into it in some detail.

Ice Monkey - 13 September 2012 03:15 PM

Smith was the only one who we could say was more than semi-literate.

Probably not.  There is so much obscurantism surrounding his biography it is difficult to tell what is apocryphal (sound familiar?) but most people agree that he had at least one very educated person assist in producing the manuscript.  He was the PR man, Oliver Cowdry and Marvin Harris are probably the authors of the prose. 


Also, if Jesus or Moses lived, they would probably qualify as the most literate since the one was a Rabbi and the other a Nobleman.  Although its clear that neither of them wrote any of the books that appear in the Bible. 

 


Have you read:
Did Muhammad Exist?, by Robert Spencer?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 07:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

Therefore, by contending that it is more rational to accept an established religion than a newer one you are failing to appreciate the inherent irrationality of accepting any religion.

I’m not saying it’s more rational to accept an established religion TODAY.  I’m saying it possibly seemed logical to accept one in the dark ages.  Certainly not today.  As a child is quite easy to just accept your cultural and religious heritage without question.  But the process of becoming a thinking adult should correct that.  Anybody who accepted Smith as a prophet during his time or today is insane because human beings were and are smarter.  There is no excuse.

The actual existence of Jesus, Mohammad and Moses is highly debatable.  Hitchens, who I admire,  is no authority.  Read Stenger.  Also, if Jesus did exist he was just a con man or an early magician.  There were a multitude of self-proclaimed messiahs during his time.  Most evidence suggests he is a composite of many messiahs.  For someone supposedly literate, there is not a shred of anything he wrote whereas and his paraphrased quotes offer nothing profound that wasn’t said before his time by others.  On The other hand, we have massive written evidence from Aristotle, the other Greeks and Roman philosophers and politicians who existed well before Jesus!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 08:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
mormovies - 14 September 2012 07:03 AM

Therefore, by contending that it is more rational to accept an established religion than a newer one you are failing to appreciate the inherent irrationality of accepting any religion.

I’m not saying it’s more rational to accept an established religion TODAY.  I’m saying it possibly seemed logical to accept one in the dark ages.  Certainly not today.  As a child is quite easy to just accept your cultural and religious heritage without question.  But the process of becoming a thinking adult should correct that.  Anybody who accepted Smith as a prophet during his time or today is insane because human beings were and are smarter.  There is no excuse.

The actual existence of Jesus, Mohammad and Moses is highly debatable.  Hitchens, who I admire,  is no authority.  Read Stenger.  Also, if Jesus did exist he was just a con man or an early magician.  There were a multitude of self-proclaimed messiahs during his time.  Most evidence suggests he is a composite of many messiahs.  For someone supposedly literate, there is not a shred of anything he wrote whereas and his paraphrased quotes offer nothing profound that wasn’t said before his time by others.  On The other hand, we have massive written evidence from Aristotle, the other Greeks and Roman philosophers and politicians who existed well before Jesus!


Joseph Smith was a con man who with the help of others invented a bizarre religion.
On a scale of credibility he would have rank a little higher than the other three simply because there is a large body of evidence to substantiate the fact that he actually existed.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 08:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

The fact of his existence does lend credibility to his subhumanoid ravings during an era where science and reason were developing.  And the fact that he gained followers is even more insane.  Hitler existed too.

[ Edited: 14 September 2012 08:13 AM by mormovies]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 08:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
mormovies - 14 September 2012 08:11 AM

The fact of his existence does lend credibility to his subhumanoid ravings during an era where science and reason were developing.  And the fact that he gained followers is even more insane.  Hitler existed too.


Ok…........I never said that what he came up with was credible.
I said that there is evidence that he actually existed and that if one were to place them all on a scale of credibility the other three wouldn’t even pass the muster.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 08:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

My premise is that ‘credibility’ must be put into the context of the times.  It’s credible to believe that the earth is the center of the universe in pre-historic times but not today or even in Smith’s times.  Bad ideas don’t need the existence of a specific physical being to be credible or not.  Lots of bad ideas and philosophies are attributed to invisible men who supposedly always existed and forever will despite a shred of evidence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 09:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
mormovies - 14 September 2012 08:35 AM

My premise is that ‘credibility’ must be put into the context of the times.  It’s credible to believe that the earth is the center of the universe in pre-historic times but not today or even in Smith’s times.  Bad ideas don’t need the existence of a specific physical being to be credible or not.  Lots of bad ideas and philosophies are attributed to invisible men who supposedly always existed and forever will despite a shred of evidence.


We have reached an impasse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 10:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

We’ll leave it here-  Do you see the difference between a Neanderthal Man believing the sun to be a god and an average educated man in the 1840’s believing Joseph Smith is a prophet?  (Hint: In the mid-1800’s we already had the inductive scientific method, we had astronomical photography,  we had the Bunsen cell, etc.)  If not then we have, in fact, reached in impasse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2012 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1585
Joined  2006-10-20
mormovies - 14 September 2012 10:08 AM

We’ll leave it here-  Do you see the difference between a Neanderthal Man believing the sun to be a god and an average educated man in the 1840’s believing Joseph Smith is a prophet?  (Hint: In the mid-1800’s we already had the inductive scientific method, we had astronomical photography,  we had the Bunsen cell, etc.)  If not then we have, in fact, reached in impasse.

No, you’re missing toombaru’s point about Smith being a real person while you argue his ideas are phony.  There is a difference.

 Signature 

“All extremists should be killed!” - neighbor’s bumper sticker

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 7
3
 
‹‹ Natural Selection      Omar Khadr ››
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed