Criticism Against Mormonism

[Lucky~9~Lives]

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

an analogy may be valid with only a single point of comparison

False.

Not everyone who's as thick as two short planks is as wooden.
- razz

[dh8d1]

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

an analogy may be valid with only a single point of comparison

False.

Not everyone who's as thick as a two short planks is as wooden.
- razz

No, you're not wooden. But analogies sometimes need more than one point of comparison.

[FlySammyJ]

Henry Hobo-Master

Mormons tend not to be well indoctrinated (on the internet, or against Anti-Mormonism).

Oh, is that why they go to church at 6 am every day before school? To not be indoctrinated? And you must be spreading these arguments around pretty well, I've heard them repeated by all the Mormons I converse with on a regular basis. I'm surprised you haven't told us about how polygamy was a socioeconomic necessity.

Henry Hobo-Master

Also, I believe the Book of Mormon to be of curious creation. I cannot declare if its true or not, but its rather curious in many different ways. The religion does not mean much to me at this time. I feel indebted to the Book and the knowledge I have learned.

What about this particular book do you find more fascinating than all the other religious texts out there? Do you hold the Pearl of Great Price in the same regard? I've read the books myself (full disclosure: I dated a Mormon for three years and he tried pretty hard to convert me, so I've been in and out of most of these arguments) and found it almost as entertaining as dry science fiction ( I do love Battlestar Galactica), but less insightful.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

dh8d1

No, you're not wooden. But analogies sometimes need more than one point of comparison.

No, an analogy needs merely a single point of comparison - indeed, a main motivation of analogizing is the inference of further points of comparison, so to require more than one as a prerequisite undermines the process.

[dh8d1]

Lucky~9~Lives

No, an analogy needs merely a single point of comparison

No matter how many times you say it, it simply isn't true.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

No, an analogy needs merely a single point of comparison

No matter how many times you say it, it simply isn't true.

So stop repeating it.

[dh8d1]

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

No, an analogy needs merely a single point of comparison

No matter how many times you say it, it simply isn't true.

So stop repeating it.

dramallama Are you done with your failed analogies?

[Lucky~9~Lives]

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

No, an analogy needs merely a single point of comparison

No matter how many times you say it, it simply isn't true.

So stop repeating it.

dramallama Are you done with your failed analogies?

I'm too busy still analogously beating your wife.
- razz

[dh8d1]

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

dh8d1

Lucky~9~Lives

No, an analogy needs merely a single point of comparison

No matter how many times you say it, it simply isn't true.

So stop repeating it.

dramallama Are you done with your failed analogies?

I'm too busy still analogously beating your wife.
- razz

Let me know how that turns out... meanwhile I'll be actually doing more constructive things.

[FlySammyJ]

dh8d1

Let me know how that turns out... meanwhile I'll be actually doing more constructive things.

Ohhh, burn rolleyes

[Henry Hobo-Master]

FlySammyJ

Mormons tend not to be well indoctrinated (on the internet, or against Anti-Mormonism).

Oh, is that why they go to church at 6 am every day before school? To not be indoctrinated? And you must be spreading these arguments around pretty well, I've heard them repeated by all the Mormons I converse with on a regular basis. I'm surprised you haven't told us about how polygamy was a socioeconomic necessity.

You mean a group of teenagers? Just because a group of teenagers go to a morning scripture class, does not mean all people are indoctrinated.

-These teenagers only learn about the Book of Mormon for 1 of the 4 years they attend. If high schooler skips a year, its quite possible that they miss all discussions about the Book of Mormon.
-While they do read scriptures, the teacher may interpret the scriptures incorrectly or in a biased way. The teacher does not teach any controversial subjects. Meaning, they know only what is popular believe (and sometimes theology).

They do not know Anti-Mormonism. They are not taught this. Mormons go to church and learn about their religion, not what others believe is "controversial". Mormons for this very reason, are useless and incompetent on the internet (when discussing things they don't know) unless they have done significant research outside of their teachings.

Polygamy is controversial for a number of reasons. It depends on the form of Polygamy. From what my sources have indicated, less than 15% of the church was involved with it at a given time. Its doubtful that polygamy was much of a "socioeconomic" necessity if that statement were true (my source may not be accurate for all periods of time).

Quote:

What about this particular book do you find more fascinating than all the other religious texts out there? Do you hold the Pearl of Great Price in the same regard? I've read the books myself (full disclosure: I dated a Mormon for three years and he tried pretty hard to convert me, so I've been in and out of most of these arguments) and found it almost as entertaining as dry science fiction ( I do love Battlestar Galactica), but less insightful.

I cannot speak for all religious texts, but one of the curious traits of the Book of Mormon was its creation. The content is also curious. The Book of Mormon mostly involved 2 people. One to read, the other to write. In it, there were various scribes, and the content itself was written at a fast pace with little to no revisions (until after it was published). As a farmer, I doubt his ability to create such a book. The possibility remains however. This book is either a fake, or is the truth. So far, the claims of it being a "fake" are still not very convincing 160+ years after its creation. I do not claim it is true. I do claim that its a pretty good fake, if it is not the truth.

The content is also curious. The Book of Mormon is very much different from most religious texts, because it attempts to discuss another civilization's God (which is the same as the authors) which there are no first-hand witnesses of. The content is filled with Hebraisms (like Chaisms and other structures). And then you have the whole topic of Nahom and Bountiful (which I linked somewhere in my posts as possible "archaeology" evidence). Much of the Book of Mormon is interesting and curious from this position.

I cannot say much about the Pearl of Great Price. I do not know much about it. If you want to say that its science fiction, I hold no issues with that. To each his own, and you have obviously put time into reading it (which is more than most people who are strongly against the Book of Mormon). You have the right to make such claims. Just try not to use the anti-Mormon arguments that I have already discussed on the first page.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

dh8d1

I'll try to make this brief

dh8d1

Henry Hobo-Master

Proof after all, is scarce.

Nope

Proofs do not exist in science. Proofs are used in logic and mathematics. Seeing how this topic is about "proving God", it is a mixture of science and religion. Thus, there is going to be no proofs available. This was topic about scientific proofs, was it not? Proofs are very limited, and scarce (depending on the subject).

Quote:

A perfect being has no need for anything, thus would not act. Period.

And I even went through all that trouble to look at a dictionary. I didn't really see your definition of perfect in there. I suppose this is nothing more than an assumption based on what you believe perfection is. Its limited. Its incomplete. And it sounds like a theory more than anything else.

If I were to replace your definition of "perfect" with another definition, then the statement would contradict itself less. Saying that God cannot exist because your definition is wrong, hardly sounds like a valid point.

You seem to degrade other's opinions a lot. Not everything is so black and white.

[dh8d1]

Henry Hobo-Master

Proofs do not exist in science.

Equivocation fallacy.

Henry Hobo-Master

And I even went through all that trouble to look at a dictionary.

Dictionaries are not authorities on what the definitions of words should be. That's a common misunderstanding. Dictionaries vary by region and by the influence of those writing the entries.

Henry Hobo-Master

I suppose this is nothing more than an assumption based on what you believe perfection is.

Nope, that's your incorrect supposition. Perfection requires being complete. A perfect being has zero motivation to create, therefore it cannot happen. It's logically unsound.

Henry Hobo-Master

If I were to replace your definition of "perfect" with another definition, then the statement would contradict itself less.

You really do like equivocation fallacies, don't you.

Henry Hobo-Master

Saying that God cannot exist because your definition is wrong

LOL... Perhaps you should quit equivocating and you'll realize that when I say a perfect being cannot create anything, I am correct.

Henry Hobo-Master

Not everything is so black and white.

Logic is. But of course, you wouldn't think so, committing as many fallacies as you do.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

dh8d1

Henry Hobo-Master

Not everything is so black and white.

Logic is.

Fuzzy logic disagrees. Probably.
- ninja

[Henry Hobo-Master]

dh8d1

Henry Hobo-Master

Proofs do not exist in science.

Equivocation fallacy.

In what way? I appreciate you pointing out the fallacies, but I'm having trouble locating the problem with this.

Quote:

Dictionaries are not authorities on what the definitions of words should be. That's a common misunderstanding. Dictionaries vary by region and by the influence of those writing the entries.

And what gives you any authority to claim that perfection means:

Quote:

A perfect being has zero motivation to create, therefore it cannot happen. It's logically unsound.

In what ways can we determine what perfection is? How can you come to this conclusion through observation, rather than "logic"? I've heard a term that could fit your claims.

Right for the wrong reasons refers to a situation where a person often a uses of correct logic, with an incorrect perception of what truth is. We all do this in one way or another, but the logic itself isn't proof of anything.

Henry Hobo-Master

If I were to replace your definition of "perfect" with another definition, then the statement would contradict itself less.

You really do like equivocation fallacies, don't you.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying your statement is wrong because of other definitions. True, I might have been trying to imply that "perfection" definition is subjective, but I hardly believe my response was completely fallacious. Besides, this fallacy requires something that is lacking:

-A clear definition and correct use of the word which is being "swapped".

Example:

Quote:

The sign said "fine for parking here", and since it was fine, I parked there.

The word "fine" and "fine" are being swapped. Both have appropriate meanings and we know which definitions they are using (in both cases). We have yet to actually determine a correct definition for perfection. In fact, I even tried to explain that it could be a different definition.

And for this, you label it a fallacy. Bullshit.

You have your opinion on what the definition of it is (which is based off your theories and logic), and then we have the rest of the definitions that are available.

Quote:

Logic is. But of course, you wouldn't think so, committing as many fallacies as you do

Also, Hasty Generalization fallacy. Its also a tad irrelevant. Often fallacies are associated with an extreme position, which is pretty contradictory to what you just said.