Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never agreed with "dignify a hoax". that isn't addressing the claim itself.
address the hoax in the exact same manor as we would any claim. It tends to shut them down. I haven't met a hoax claim that isn't closed down pretty quickly when we know what we are talking about.
The real problem is when we assign clearly less valid claims equal weight. I think the problem is charlatans using people's insecurities against them and claiming everybody has a right to an opinion.
died, rose, for our sins doesn't get equal weight. Love compassion and understanding do get equal weight.
notice, never did my personal opinion about religion, religious people, or "god" ever come up.
It became so apparent that anyone could make up anything, no matter how far-fetched, and find people willing to accept the tale and follow him to the promised land... that it really opened my eyes to the entire history of religion(s) on this planet.
This is one of my main concerns with Joseph Smith's experience. The whole Golden Plates/Seer Stones/Translating with a blanket over his head all sounds like a script from an Indiana Jones movie, or written by Tolkien or J.K. Rowling for Lord Of The Rings or Harry Potter.
It detracts from credibility IMO, and leads me to believe the experience was a very earthly, man made delusion or purposeful con. What self respecting and credible Deity would allow their Prophet to cast such a tale?
Ya know, it's not 100% certain what happened to the Golden Plates after Joseph Smith translated them, in a report from the "Journal Of Discourses" on June 17, 1877 Brigham Young said the following:
"When Joseph got the plates, the Angel instructed him to carry them back to Hill Cumorah, which he did... the hill opened, and they walked into a cave, in which there was a large and spacious room... and there were altogether in this room more plates than probably man wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls"
Now Shirina and Trans, if I were to hand one of you a metal detector and the other ground penetrating radar, and place you both at the Hill on Tran's day off, can you both wholeheartedly and honestly tell me you would not take at least one sweep of the Hill?....
Probably I would if it was made that easy. But I wouldn't buy one and travel there in great hopes.
I remember the film clip about a lawyer claiming that God would appear in court. It didn't, but as he said "You were all looking". It is a sad commentary of the influence of religious thought that this was considered a valid point for the God -claim.
Scientific thought would Not reject the claim of a god or metal plates on a 'believe -or not' basis but would test the claim and if nothing was found, to say "Negative evidence says that the claim has not met its' burden of proof'. Not for the god, and not for the metal plates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
She is a marvel of intellectual prowess. I wish the one and only REAL God had her on its side. The primitive versions are easy enough for the lesser mortals to refute. It is almost a waste of her talents.
It's because she is so smart that no 'god' has her on their side. I am daily saddened that your own fine mind has put itself at the service of Faith - based fallacy.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-23-2019 at 09:23 AM..
I am not Shirina or Trans (... perhaps they were singled out as being particularly susceptible to hucksters and charlatans? Yeah, right!)
But I have been the the Hill, and can honestly say I would not take a sweep with that metal detector. For the same reason I would not pick up a shovel to help dig for Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat, or the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Why dignify a hoax?
Indeed, I now realize in hindsight that my visit to the Hill... complete with video presentations to the captive audience showing angels helping Joe dig for gold, backed up by mystical music... was a crucial step in my own liberation from religion. It became so apparent that anyone could make up anything, no matter how far-fetched, and find people willing to accept the tale and follow him to the promised land... that it really opened my eyes to the entire history of religion(s) on this planet.
Perhaps you singled out Me because I am so persistent a poster and Shirina because she is less prolific but far more powerful.
I of course became aware of the Moronic angel in the UFO days when anything Transporter -like was co -opted as evidence of aliens in spacecraft (Fatima was regarded as one of the classic UFO sightings). I next bumped into it when some Mormons came to the door and gave me a copy of the Book or Mormon. I read it and some library books on the LDS (both sides of the argument) and gave my conclusions -getting a very shirty response.
The third was here - some time ago -when a former Mormon (whose screen -name sorrowfully escapes me - a great thinker) introduced me to the Abraham Papyrus, which definitively scotched the claim that J. Smith could translate Egyptian at least. The major excuse was stuffed when the original papyrus turned up in a museum and it was clear that the 'translation' was nonsense (1) . It is (for me) the first nail in the coffin - like the nativity. One nail in, the rest go in much more easily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...?
This is one of my main concerns with Joseph Smith's experience. The whole Golden Plates/Seer Stones/Translating with a blanket over his head all sounds like a script from an Indiana Jones movie, or written by Tolkien or J.K. Rowling for Lord Of The Rings or Harry Potter.
It detracts from credibility IMO, and leads me to believe the experience was a very earthly, man made delusion or purposeful con. What self respecting and credible Deity would allow their Prophet to cast such a tale?
Didn't the original translation get stolen to see whether he could translate it accurately again, and he had to claim that something - the plates, or the meanings - had changed in the meantime?
(1) I have to say that there is strong evidence of deliberate fakery rather than just delusion; parts of the Egyptian funeral picture (very common in such papyri) that would have given the lie to Smith's Interpretation of the scene had conveniently gone missing.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-23-2019 at 09:16 AM..
Perhaps you singled out Me because I am so persistent a poster and Shirina because she is less prolific but far more powerful.
I of course became aware of the Moronic angel in the UFO days when anything Transporter -like was co -opted as evidence of aliens in spacecraft (Fatima was regarded as one of the classic UFO sightings). I next bumped into it when some Mormons came to the door and gave me a copy of the Book or Mormon. I read it and some library books on the LDS (both sides of the argument) and gave my conclusions -getting a very shirty response.
The third was here - some time ago -when a former Mormon (whose screen -name sorrowfully escapes me - a great thinker) introduced me to the Abraham Papyrus, which definitively scotched the claim that J. Smith could translate Egyptian at least. The major excuse was stuffed when the original papyrus turned up in a museum and it was clear that the 'translation' was nonsense. It is (for me) the first nail in the coffin - like the nativity. One nail in, the rest go in much more easily.
you are actually being pointed out as less valid sect of atheism.
atheism is not about determining the best interpretations based on how religious people will use the info. The best atheism is not about thinking we can save people with our statement of belief about god. the best forms of atheism are not concerned with what people believe as much as how we are dealing with the problems we see.
all in all, the anti-religious sect of atheism, properly described as a fundy-think atheism, is clearly a danger to us all.
I never agreed with "dignify a hoax". that isn't addressing the claim itself.
address the hoax in the exact same manor as we would any claim. It tends to shut them down. I haven't met a hoax claim that isn't closed down pretty quickly when we know what we are talking about.
The real problem is when we assign clearly less valid claims equal weight. I think the problem is charlatans using people's insecurities against them and claiming everybody has a right to an opinion.
died, rose, for our sins doesn't get equal weight. Love compassion and understanding do get equal weight.
notice, never did my personal opinion about religion, religious people, or "god" ever come up.
Well said, Arach.
I appended my original reference to "hoaxes," in order to acknowledge that some of the stories in question may be more charitably seen as Transparently Tall Tales (TTT), removing the implication of deliberate deception. But the point remains the same: investigating and respecting and honoring these tales gives them undeserved credibility. When they really don't deserve anything more than "Oh, c'mon!?!?"
For example, the world would be a saner place if Noah's Ark had been seen all along as a recirculated tale borrowed from another culture, in order to make some philosophical point or simply weave a fun story. In the absence of any evidence to support such a tale, it did not deserve to persist as factual belief for thousands of years... or to be the subject of extensive explorations and expeditions, or state-supported museums, or Russell Crowe movies.
Having said all the above, notwithstanding my allowance for TTT, I think Joseph Smith's plates are rightly called an outright hoax.
If their heads are so full of enculturation, brainwashing, and assimilation - well - it means they were incapable of making an honest determination. They believed what they believed from the very start. In other words, they never made the *choice* to believe.
Despite how baffling it is to me, I have a little more sympathy to those who came to religion at an older age, preferably in adulthood - and even more sympathy for those who converted from atheism to religion (even though that's even more baffling to me).
The reason is because these people would be old enough, theoretically worldly enough, and hopefully knowledgeable enough to make a conscious choice to believe in some deity or other.
I've said this twice in two other posts, but I'll repeat it here since it's relevant:
In a scientific poll done a few years ago, 400 former Christians were asked if they regretted deconverting to atheism. Only one - count 'em - one person regretted their decision. Now, if 399 people out of 400 were satisfied and even happy getting away from religion - shouldn't that tell us something?
Since when does any poll, even with a binary answer, have an almost unanimous result?
Which is why I say that a lot of people in *this* country are pulled into religion - especially the more militant sort from fundamentalist Islam to fundevangelist Christianity - long before any conscious choice can be made. And when they do manage to make a choice later in life, those that leave behind religion seem awfully grateful they did.
Plus, if you count the multitudes of former believers, now atheists, who call in to various atheist podcasts and talk at length about their deconversion process and how happy and free they feel now that they've shed the shackles of religion - well - that's why I believe that a lot of people really are wasting their time praying to imaginary deities. I'm not saying they all are - but I wonder just how many people would be believers if they had been given an honest choice.
Isn't it also likely that if you asked 400 atheists who had converted to a belief in a "higher power" if they regretted it, 399 or maybe even 400 of them would say no? What it tells me it's not a choice, either way. We believe what makes sense to us at the time, and no one regrets believing what they think is truth.
Now, whether or not to "worship" whatever god (or no-god) one believes is the truth of our reality, that's a choice. If I still believed that God was what the Christians who believe in hell proclaim, I'd have to make a choice: Do I align myself with that god (worship it) so that I can avoid hell, or do I stand on the side of what I believe is good, and say, "No, I can't worship such a god." That would be an incredibly difficult and fearful choice to make, and I agree that people who believe that they will suffer for eternity for not worshipping a threatening god really don't have much of choice.
However, while I'm incredibly grateful to have been freed from my early and prolonged indoctrination into a belief in a bipolar and confusing omni-being (who IS love but is eternally wrathful ), I do not regret the time that I spent in that religion, or my experience of worshipping it. Because while worshipping the wrathful entity was detrimental, at some point, worshipping* the God who is love won out in my life and that has been nothing but beneficial.
(*My idea of "worship" is not about religious rites, but has to do with aligning myself with what I believe is good. Even when I was still a Christian, that is how I had come to see worship.)
you are actually being pointed out as less valid sect of atheism.
atheism is not about determining the best interpretations based on how religious people will use the info. The best atheism is not about thinking we can save people with our statement of belief about god. the best forms of atheism are not concerned with what people believe as much as how we are dealing with the problems we see.
all in all, the anti-religious sect of atheism, properly described as a fundy-think atheism, is clearly a danger to us all.
Sorry, but I am anti-religious and I'll tell you why.
You said that we shouldn't be concerned with what people believe as much as how we are dealing with the problems we see.
Well ... what people *believe* often determine how they deal with the problems we face. Instead of looking at things rationally, they look at problems and solutions from the standpoint of their religion.
For instance, there's the obvious problem of climate change.
There is a considerable swathe of the populace who think we shouldn't do anything at all - and just let the planet fall to shambles. I mean, why bother doing anything at all when Jesus is going to come back any minute now and fix all our problems, right?
Or ... human activity couldn't possibly be the problem when God gave humanity dominion over the earth.
Or ... puny humans couldn't possibly alter, change, or destroy something God himself created ...
And on and on. How can we do anything about such a stupidly obvious problem when a considerable number of people believe in taking the magical option first? Because no God or Jesus is going to show up and we'll have to defuse the bomb after it's already gone off.
As I've said before - if religion was kept a personal choice, I wouldn't have an issue with it. But since it decided to organize, meddle with politics, amass huge fortunes, and exist above the law, THEY are the danger to us all. I just wish you could see that instead of bashing atheists all the time.
I mean - unless you *want* to live in a fascist theocracy. Even now, the religious right is stacking the Supreme Court with right-wing religious judges. Five states so far have passed laws allowing public schools to have religious slogans and Bible verses displayed on their walls. And they did that on purpose as a legal test for the Supreme Court to see if they could get away with it. If they do, then they will push even further until kids are forced to chant prayers to a deity whether they believe in one or not.
They're trying to push their religion - fundamentalist religion as bad as fundamentalist Islam - onto society by dumbing down our kids and filling their heads with religious nonsense. The Tea Party, another right-wing religious extremist group actually rallied to stop free, compulsory education and instead make ALL schools religious - and only those who can afford it can attend. The rest of the kids? Well - they also pushed to revoke child labor laws AND the minimum wage. That way they could populate their factories with cheap child labor.
So I ask again - WHO, precisely, is a danger to us all?
Why do atheists spend their time daily arguing about the characteristics of something they claim doesn't exist?
You have been told why a hundred times...and still you ask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy
Or - waste it by arguing about make-believe gods.
Didn't you read her post? It is not the make-believe gods that we argue against.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), I do not regret the time that I spent in that religion, or my experience of worshipping it. Because while worshipping the wrathful entity was detrimental, at some point, worshipping* the God who is love won out in my life and that has been nothing but beneficial.
