Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religious Debates

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2009 10:12:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Has anyone ever come across a religious debate (on DDO or otherwise) with empirical data in support of religion? I'm sure that some exist. Additionally, has anyone ever heard any good faith-based arguments? I'm pretty sure I could come up with some, and I'd love to debate pro-religion one day (I'm an atheist), because I think religious debates are generally the most fallacious bunches of BS I've ever read... which is sad.

I'd like to debate an intelligent theist sometime (KRF? Logical-Master? RoyLatham?), as the current debate I'm doing where Pro challenged me with a knowledge claim (the resolution: God does exist) is silly in the sense that he has provided no empirical evidence, and included upward of 15 obvious fallacies in his last round (including the OBVIOUS modus tollens! Wtf?). I know there are smart theists out there... come out, come out, wherever you are!

If you're in for a good laugh, read both of our Round 3 arguments:

http://www.debate.org...
President of DDO
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2009 10:26:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

Oh dear, that's a sad debate :(.

If you want, I could always play devil's advocate though I don't know if I can do theists justice. One interesting argument that isn't used a lot, at least on this website, is Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

After reading it I'm not convinced nor impressed, but it's at least different. Of course, this alone doesn't affirm the existence of the theistic god, but it can lend credence towards it.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2009 11:18:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/27/2009 10:26:34 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Oh dear, that's a sad debate :(.

If you want, I could always play devil's advocate though I don't know if I can do theists justice. One interesting argument that isn't used a lot, at least on this website, is Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

After reading it I'm not convinced nor impressed, but it's at least different. Of course, this alone doesn't affirm the existence of the theistic god, but it can lend credence towards it.

So funny you mention Plantinga's "Naturalism Defeated." I was actually planning on doing that in the near future. If you would like, I would very much enjoy defending Plantinga's undefeated defeater ;).
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2009 11:19:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/27/2009 10:12:49 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Has anyone ever come across a religious debate (on DDO or otherwise) with empirical data in support of religion?

Oh yes. I've heard one that uses empirical data - the entire universe!
"The world is beautiful, therefore god".

Additionally, has anyone ever heard any good faith-based arguments?

If faith is "belief without evidence", then that's not possible.

I know there are smart theists out there... come out, come out, wherever you are!

I'd like to see one too, though I don't think I ever will. Finding a smart agnostic should be easier, but I haven't even done that yet.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2009 11:22:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Also,

Wikipedia:
The evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) argues that the combination of evolutionary theory and naturalism is self-defeating on the basis of the claim that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then—according to Plantinga's calculations—the probability of having reliable cognitive facilities is low.

I haven't read through the page so I don't know how the logic points to such a conclusion, but is that the impact of the argument? That the probability is low?

I mean seriously. Is that the argument?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 12:12:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/27/2009 10:12:49 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Has anyone ever come across a religious debate (on DDO or otherwise) with empirical data in support of religion? I'm sure that some exist. Additionally, has anyone ever heard any good faith-based arguments? I'm pretty sure I could come up with some, and I'd love to debate pro-religion one day (I'm an atheist), because I think religious debates are generally the most fallacious bunches of BS I've ever read... which is sad.

I'd like to debate an intelligent theist sometime (KRF? Logical-Master? RoyLatham?), as the current debate I'm doing where Pro challenged me with a knowledge claim (the resolution: God does exist) is silly in the sense that he has provided no empirical evidence, and included upward of 15 obvious fallacies in his last round (including the OBVIOUS modus tollens! Wtf?). I know there are smart theists out there... come out, come out, wherever you are!

If you're in for a good laugh, read both of our Round 3 arguments:

http://www.debate.org...

The following simple question of morality proves God:

Is morality subjective OR objective?

IF subjective then how can one view be better (or the word 'better' be used in any meaningful way?) than another?

IF objective then WHERE does the objectivity reside?

I have NEVER received a satifactory answer to this. (and with GOOD reason: Morality is OBVIOUSLY objective which means it MUST be eternal; therefore GOD)

Professing yourselves to be wise you have become FOOLS.
The Cross.. the Cross.
VainApocalypse
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:11:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 12:12:47 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/27/2009 10:12:49 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Has anyone ever come across a religious debate (on DDO or otherwise) with empirical data in support of religion? I'm sure that some exist. Additionally, has anyone ever heard any good faith-based arguments? I'm pretty sure I could come up with some, and I'd love to debate pro-religion one day (I'm an atheist), because I think religious debates are generally the most fallacious bunches of BS I've ever read... which is sad.

I'd like to debate an intelligent theist sometime (KRF? Logical-Master? RoyLatham?), as the current debate I'm doing where Pro challenged me with a knowledge claim (the resolution: God does exist) is silly in the sense that he has provided no empirical evidence, and included upward of 15 obvious fallacies in his last round (including the OBVIOUS modus tollens! Wtf?). I know there are smart theists out there... come out, come out, wherever you are!

If you're in for a good laugh, read both of our Round 3 arguments:

http://www.debate.org...

The following simple question of morality proves God:

Is morality subjective OR objective?

IF subjective then how can one view be better (or the word 'better' be used in any meaningful way?) than another?

IF objective then WHERE does the objectivity reside?

I have NEVER received a satifactory answer to this. (and with GOOD reason: Morality is OBVIOUSLY objective which means it MUST be eternal; therefore GOD)

Professing yourselves to be wise you have become FOOLS.

Well that's refutable without much effort at all.

Ex: No morality is objectively better than another. Ta-da!

I'd like to see someone (readers of Rand aside) who could prove objective morality.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:32:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 1:11:58 AM, VainApocalypse wrote:
At 7/28/2009 12:12:47 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/27/2009 10:12:49 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Has anyone ever come across a religious debate (on DDO or otherwise) with empirical data in support of religion? I'm sure that some exist. Additionally, has anyone ever heard any good faith-based arguments? I'm pretty sure I could come up with some, and I'd love to debate pro-religion one day (I'm an atheist), because I think religious debates are generally the most fallacious bunches of BS I've ever read... which is sad.

I'd like to debate an intelligent theist sometime (KRF? Logical-Master? RoyLatham?), as the current debate I'm doing where Pro challenged me with a knowledge claim (the resolution: God does exist) is silly in the sense that he has provided no empirical evidence, and included upward of 15 obvious fallacies in his last round (including the OBVIOUS modus tollens! Wtf?). I know there are smart theists out there... come out, come out, wherever you are!

If you're in for a good laugh, read both of our Round 3 arguments:

http://www.debate.org...

The following simple question of morality proves God:

Is morality subjective OR objective?

IF subjective then how can one view be better (or the word 'better' be used in any meaningful way?) than another?

IF objective then WHERE does the objectivity reside?

I have NEVER received a satifactory answer to this. (and with GOOD reason: Morality is OBVIOUSLY objective which means it MUST be eternal; therefore GOD)

Professing yourselves to be wise you have become FOOLS.

Well that's refutable without much effort at all.

Ex: No morality is objectively better than another. Ta-da!

Before you claim your pallid little victory; WAIT for the retort.
In order for something to be objectively better than another there MUST be an object: a STANDARD which is ABOVE the better morality; or else, HOW is it better?
How is it above?

I'd like to see someone (readers of Rand aside) who could prove objective morality.

See above. You STILL have ALL your work ahead of you.

casting

D

O

W

N

arguments and EVERY 'high' thing that exalts ITSELF above the knowledge

o

f

God.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:42:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I can't prove objective morality, but I can link you to a book that does!

http://www.freedomainradio.com...

The second book. It is free. Go dl and read it.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:44:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/27/2009 11:22:42 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Also,

Wikipedia:
The evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) argues that the combination of evolutionary theory and naturalism is self-defeating on the basis of the claim that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then—according to Plantinga's calculations—the probability of having reliable cognitive facilities is low.

I haven't read through the page so I don't know how the logic points to such a conclusion, but is that the impact of the argument? That the probability is low?

I mean seriously. Is that the argument?

I just thought of something, and it changed my mind. I now buy Plantinga's argument: The probability of having reliable cognitive facilities is low. This is why >85% of the world is religious.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
VainApocalypse
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:57:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 1:42:12 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
I can't prove objective morality, but I can link you to a book that does!

http://www.freedomainradio.com...

The second book. It is free. Go dl and read it.

I've read some of Molyneux's work before, and that particular book has been on my reading list for a while. I must confess though that the title alone doesn't bode well as far as objective proofs go.
VainApocalypse
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 2:07:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 1:32:55 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/28/2009 1:11:58 AM, VainApocalypse wrote:
At 7/28/2009 12:12:47 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/27/2009 10:12:49 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Has anyone ever come across a religious debate (on DDO or otherwise) with empirical data in support of religion? I'm sure that some exist. Additionally, has anyone ever heard any good faith-based arguments? I'm pretty sure I could come up with some, and I'd love to debate pro-religion one day (I'm an atheist), because I think religious debates are generally the most fallacious bunches of BS I've ever read... which is sad.

I'd like to debate an intelligent theist sometime (KRF? Logical-Master? RoyLatham?), as the current debate I'm doing where Pro challenged me with a knowledge claim (the resolution: God does exist) is silly in the sense that he has provided no empirical evidence, and included upward of 15 obvious fallacies in his last round (including the OBVIOUS modus tollens! Wtf?). I know there are smart theists out there... come out, come out, wherever you are!

If you're in for a good laugh, read both of our Round 3 arguments:

http://www.debate.org...

The following simple question of morality proves God:

Is morality subjective OR objective?

IF subjective then how can one view be better (or the word 'better' be used in any meaningful way?) than another?

IF objective then WHERE does the objectivity reside?

I have NEVER received a satifactory answer to this. (and with GOOD reason: Morality is OBVIOUSLY objective which means it MUST be eternal; therefore GOD)

Professing yourselves to be wise you have become FOOLS.

Well that's refutable without much effort at all.

Ex: No morality is objectively better than another. Ta-da!

Before you claim your pallid little victory; WAIT for the retort.
In order for something to be objectively better than another there MUST be an object: a STANDARD which is ABOVE the better morality; or else, HOW is it better?
How is it above?

Yes, and therein lies the problem; where is the higher standard against which two moralities can be measured? That standard must be objectively higher, mind you, not fabricated or arbitrarily selected, which is the fault into which most attempts at objective morality tumble.

Without that standard, we arrive back at the notion that nothing is objectively better. You are exactly right in that, now where is that standard?
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 9:15:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I will set aside the "empirical data" idea for a moment and make a general observation: The idea that all important knowledge is based on scientific evidence is simply untrue.

http://www.lds.org...

So to say that is the only way to logically debate (using empirical data/ scientific evidence only) would not be accurate.

While I find that there is evidence which supports religion, I also know that many people who are seeking such evidences are not actually interested in learning religious truths.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 9:54:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 9:15:12 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
I will set aside the "empirical data" idea for a moment and make a general observation: The idea that all important knowledge is based on scientific evidence

"Scientific evidence" as opposed to what?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 10:54:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 9:54:18 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/28/2009 9:15:12 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
I will set aside the "empirical data" idea for a moment and make a general observation: The idea that all important knowledge is based on scientific evidence

"Scientific evidence" as opposed to what?

Knowledge of outside temperature can be verified by scientific proof.

Knowledge that we love our spouse is personal and subjective. BUT to say that kind of knowledge is not important would not be correct.

Knowledge of spiritual truths are given by revelation from God to a person.
Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. http://scriptures.lds.org...
And to say that kind of knowledge is not important would also not be correct.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 11:18:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 10:54:13 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 7/28/2009 9:54:18 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/28/2009 9:15:12 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
I will set aside the "empirical data" idea for a moment and make a general observation: The idea that all important knowledge is based on scientific evidence

"Scientific evidence" as opposed to what?

Knowledge of outside temperature can be verified by scientific proof.

Knowledge that we love our spouse is personal and subjective. BUT to say that kind of knowledge is not important would not be correct.

Knowledge of spiritual truths are given by revelation from God to a person.
Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. http://scriptures.lds.org...
And to say that kind of knowledge is not important would also not be correct.

Tell me, what proof is their the bible is factually correct? People could think they heard "gods calling" and contributed to it. In terms of the New testament, their was money to be made from writing those works. Furthermore, many account were written but rejected.

In terms of the moral code and proverbs, remember philosophers like Confucius existed.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 11:59:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 11:18:22 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Tell me, what proof is their the bible is factually correct? People could think they heard "gods calling" and contributed to it. In terms of the New testament, their was money to be made from writing those works. Furthermore, many account were written but rejected.

In terms of the moral code and proverbs, remember philosophers like Confucius existed.

I was trying to simply make the point that there are different kinds of knowledge...that are not necessarily scientific. For example if God sent an angel to you and revealed something to you, then you would know that particular thing. And you can also know that you love someone (even though you may not be able to prove it to someone else)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as Confucius - According to tradition, Confucius was born in 551 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Isaiah was preaching the gospel before Confucius was even born - he preached between 740 and 687 BC....
http://en.wikipedia.org...
But in any case the gospel was on the Earth since the first man (Adam)....Although there have been different "Dispensations" of the Gospel. http://scriptures.lds.org...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as the Bible being factually correct -first of all I would say that I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;

If you are looking for that kind of thing, there are many archaeologists out there that find many evidences to support what is in the Bible....
The Smithsonian Department of Anthropology has this to say about the Bible.
"Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated."
http://agards-bible-timeline.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 12:01:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 10:54:13 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 7/28/2009 9:54:18 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 7/28/2009 9:15:12 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
I will set aside the "empirical data" idea for a moment and make a general observation: The idea that all important knowledge is based on scientific evidence

"Scientific evidence" as opposed to what?

Knowledge of outside temperature can be verified by scientific proof.

Knowledge that we love our spouse is personal and subjective.

Knowledge of love is not subjective. If X loves Y, then X would be be doing something special with Y that X does not do with anybody else. Love is an objective thing; it is not simply in our heads. If love was simply personal and subjective, we could say that a teenage boy's relation to his hand "love", but we don't use the word "love" to describe that. Unless you are going to argue that masturbation to a fantasy is love, love is not simply personal and subjective. This is not to say that love ISN'T personal, but rather, love does has objective qualities to it. Love is a relationship between two people, and so requires interaction and ergo we will always have evidence.

If there is no evidence, then obviously, love is not happening.

If we "know" that we love our spouse and yet treat her like trash, then obviously, this "love" is simply a myth inside our heads.

BUT to say that kind of knowledge is not important would not be correct [...]
And to say that kind of knowledge is not important would also not be correct.

Importance is irrelevant to truth values.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:04:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 2:07:44 AM, VainApocalypse wrote:
At 7/28/2009 1:32:55 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/28/2009 1:11:58 AM, VainApocalypse wrote:
At 7/28/2009 12:12:47 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/27/2009 10:12:49 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Has anyone ever come across a religious debate (on DDO or otherwise) with empirical data in support of religion? I'm sure that some exist. Additionally, has anyone ever heard any good faith-based arguments? I'm pretty sure I could come up with some, and I'd love to debate pro-religion one day (I'm an atheist), because I think religious debates are generally the most fallacious bunches of BS I've ever read... which is sad.

I'd like to debate an intelligent theist sometime (KRF? Logical-Master? RoyLatham?), as the current debate I'm doing where Pro challenged me with a knowledge claim (the resolution: God does exist) is silly in the sense that he has provided no empirical evidence, and included upward of 15 obvious fallacies in his last round (including the OBVIOUS modus tollens! Wtf?). I know there are smart theists out there... come out, come out, wherever you are!

If you're in for a good laugh, read both of our Round 3 arguments:

http://www.debate.org...

The following simple question of morality proves God:

Is morality subjective OR objective?

IF subjective then how can one view be better (or the word 'better' be used in any meaningful way?) than another?

IF objective then WHERE does the objectivity reside?

I have NEVER received a satifactory answer to this. (and with GOOD reason: Morality is OBVIOUSLY objective which means it MUST be eternal; therefore GOD)

Professing yourselves to be wise you have become FOOLS.

Well that's refutable without much effort at all.

Ex: No morality is objectively better than another. Ta-da!

Before you claim your pallid little victory; WAIT for the retort.
In order for something to be objectively better than another there MUST be an object: a STANDARD which is ABOVE the better morality; or else, HOW is it better?
How is it above?


Yes, and therein lies the problem; where is the higher standard against which two moralities can be measured? That standard must be objectively higher, mind you, not fabricated or arbitrarily selected, which is the fault into which most attempts at objective morality tumble.

Without that standard, we arrive back at the notion that nothing is objectively better. You are exactly right in that, now where is that standard?

The obvious answer is God: It MUST reside in something that is eternal OR it would have died.
The Cross.. the Cross.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:10:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 11:59:56 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:

From: http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com...

THE TRUTH ABOUT

MORMONISM

(WHAT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD)

BY DENNIS AND RAUNI HIGLEY

President Joseph Fielding Smith (President of the LDS Church in the early 1970's) stated:

"Mormonism must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false..."

("Doctrines of Salvation," vol. 1 pp 188-189.)

When one reads the above statement, an investigation through a study of the pertinent documentation - is called for. Historically, the Mormon story is a young one and for that reason alone is relatively easy to investigate.

So let's begin in the year 1820.

Joseph Smith claimed he had a visit from God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, in 1820. He said that they told him that all churches were wrong and were an abomination to God and that he should not join any of them. He said that when he told his community about God's visit, that it initiated his fierce persecution. Later he said that he received visits from the angel Moroni, who Joseph Smith said was a resurrected being who had died close to Smith's area in New York state about 1400 years earlier. Moroni, Joseph Smith asserted, had buried in New York in the Hill Cumorah a record of his people who had lived on the American continent from about 600 B.C. to about 421 A.D. That record, Joseph Smith was told, would be given to him to translate. Then, a few years later Joseph Smith said that he received the record, written on gold plates in "reformed Egyptian" language that no one but he could understand. He was also told not to show these gold plates to anyone, but that some time later a few selected people would be given the privilege to view them. He said that he then translated the plates and published the material as the "Book of Mormon" and gave the gold plates back to the angel Moroni.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that the name of the Church was given to Joseph Smith by revelation. However, when Smith first organized the Church in 1830, it was called the "Church of Christ," then four years later the name was changed to the "Church of Latter-day Saints," then in 1838, it was changed again, this time to the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," as it is known today. Joseph Smith claimed that he received many revelations from God, and he began to introduce many new doctrines to his new Church; one of the doctrines was polygamy, a practice that Smith denied publicly but practiced secretly. That doctrine was the obvious downfall of Joseph Smith, and he was killed in 1844 as a result of the polygamy controversy.

Now let's go back and look at this above information a little closer and in detail.

Joseph Smith claimed that after he had seen a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ, he said that he told it first to a Methodist preacher and that it started the entire community, "all men of high standing" and "the great ones of the most popular sects, " to persecute him bitterly, he being only a boy of 14 years of age. Wouldn't you think that kind of commotion would have caused someone somewhere to write about it? - At least the Palmyra Newspaper would have written something, since Joseph Smith claimed that "all men" were united to bring a "bitter and reviling persecution" against him. Not many important events took place in that little town, and even unimportant gossip was printed. But one searches in vain from 1820 on to find an account about a young boy's vision or persecution, or to find a story regarding the revival excitement that Smith later claimed was the reason why he went to the grove to seek God in prayer and received this fantastic vision. Joseph Smith said that he was told twice in this vision not to join any of the religions (see "Pearl of Great Price" 2:5-26), but it is interesting to note that in 1823, Joseph's mother, sister and two brothers joined the Presbyterian Church, and later Joseph himself sought membership in the Methodist Church, where his wife was a member. Records show that Joseph was expelled in 1828, because of his belief in magic and also because of his "money-digging activities."

Joseph's newly organized church started to publish its history as events took place. This publication was called the "Messenger and Advocate." Oliver Cowdery was the main writer and its accuracy was checked by Joseph Smith himself. In this publication Joseph tells how, after his brother Alvin's death, and after his mother, sister and two brothers had joined the Presbyterian Church, he started to seek religion and pray "if some Supreme Being existed" (vol. 1 p. 79). IF HE HAD HAD A VISION OF GOD THE FATHER AND HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST IN 1820, HE MOST CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE KNOWN BY 1823 OR 1824 THAT A SUPREME BEING EXISTED. By reading diaries, records, newspapers, etc., one seeks in vain to find any mention of this so-called "First Vision" stor until 1842, when it was published in "Times and Seasons," 22 years after this vision supposedly took place. It becomes quites obvious that this report was an after-thought, since the Vision story talks about two separate gods and the Book of Mormon says that here is only one God; and that Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Ghost are this one God. Examples: Alma 11:26-33; 18:26-28; Mosiah 15:1, 2, 5, etc. "The Book of Commandments" (now called "Doctrine and Covenants") was published in 1835 and it included lectures given in the School of the Prophets. Lecture 5 says God is a Spirit, and the Son only has the body of flesh and bones. (The lectures have later been removed from the "D&C" but they are available as a separate small book.) There is now an added footnote to this lecture 5, which says that Joseph received further light and knowledge in 1843 and THEN knew that God the Father also had a body of flesh and bones. That statement alone tells that there was no vision of the Father and Son in 1820. Had there been a vision, he wouldn't have needed this "further light and knowledge" about the Father having a body of flesh and bones. It was not until 1844, that Joseph started to preach about a god who was once a man and progressed into godhood, and how men can also become gods. (See "Teachings by Prophet Joseph Smith" pp. 345-347). Thus, there is absolutely no evidence for the First Vision as it appears in the Pearl of Great Price, or that the vision was known to Mormons or non-Mormons prior to 1842 or thereabouts. It was not until the 1880'2 that this story was accepted by the Church. Prior to that time, we were only able to read denials about it. For example, in "Journal of Discourses," vol. 2, p. 171, in 1855, Brigham Young preached a sermon in which he said:

LOTS more where THIS came from..
The Cross.. the Cross.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:29:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 12:01:02 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Knowledge of love is not subjective. If X loves Y, then X would be be doing something special with Y that X does not do with anybody else. Love is an objective thing; it is not simply in our heads.

Thank you for the thought provoking reply...I would like to stick to the heart of the matter here a bit and sidestep the "love as objective" idea for a moment and ask first...do you believe that there is such a thing as "SUBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE"?
I think the status quo idea on love is that it is subjective and I am of that mind too, but mostly I used that example because it was handy from my first link...Maybe L-Werd can explain further on that type of love and whether it is subjective or objective (?)...but I am just wondering if you subscribe to the idea that subjective knowledge exists...

If there is no evidence, then obviously, love is not happening.

I am not sure if that is a true statement...

I love golfing, but the evidence might not show that....especially after almost all of my drives! :D (the good news is that I think I discovered that I just need a bigger driver!).... the outbursts of frustration may appear outwardly to people that I am not enjoying myself (evidence)...but just being out there in the beautiful environment (subjective) is very nice and I love playing (subjective).
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:31:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I love when Christians attack other religions.

And Christians rely on a book that can't be verified. They also believe in a zombie giving us eternal salvation. Good luck with that.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:38:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 1:31:05 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I love when Christians attack other religions.

And Christians rely on a book that can't be verified. They also believe in a zombie giving us eternal salvation. Good luck with that.

Mormonism is'nt EVEN another religion: It's a CULT.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 2:04:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 1:29:48 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
At 7/28/2009 12:01:02 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Knowledge of love is not subjective. If X loves Y, then X would be be doing something special with Y that X does not do with anybody else. Love is an objective thing; it is not simply in our heads.

Thank you for the thought provoking reply...I would like to stick to the heart of the matter here a bit and sidestep the "love as objective" idea for a moment and ask first...do you believe that there is such a thing as "SUBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE"?
I think the status quo idea on love is that it is subjective and I am of that mind too, but mostly I used that example because it was handy from my first link...Maybe L-Werd can explain further on that type of love and whether it is subjective or objective (?)...but I am just wondering if you subscribe to the idea that subjective knowledge exists...

Purely subjective knowledge?.... no, I don't think so. I don't think I do. The only thing that comes to mind when I think "purely subjective knowledge" is "what did I dream about last night", and even if I remember, I can't say that I knew for sure I dreamed it. I can only go as far as "I think I dreamed about X", because there's nothing outside my mind to refer to for confirmation. I would not call it knowledge. So my answer would be no by default.

If there is no evidence, then obviously, love is not happening.

I am not sure if that is a true statement...

I love golfing, but the evidence might not show that....especially after almost all of my drives! :D (the good news is that I think I discovered that I just need a bigger driver!).... the outbursts of frustration may appear outwardly to people that I am not enjoying myself (evidence)

The evidence is that you are frustrated.
An inferred conclusion is that you hate golf.
Another inferred conclusion is that you love golf but you are not progressing enough.

"You are not enjoying yourself" is not evidence. It is an inferred conclusion.

...but just being out there in the beautiful environment (subjective) is very nice

Sorry if this wasn't clear in my last post, but I didn't say that love has to be completely subjective. To be sure I was also discussing love as a type of relation between two people, but the basics remain the same - love has objective qualities. Though I do mean that love is not completely subjective, I didn't mean that love is completely objective. There are objective qualities. That is all.

and I love playing (subjective).

The origins might be completely subjective, but the love is proven to be true and not just a delusion, because you continue to play regardless of whatever obstacles you run into. Your continued play is the evidence.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 2:19:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 1:29:48 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
do you believe that there is such a thing as "SUBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE"?

The term is self-contradicting. If such a thing were possible, I could KNOW that there is a Coke Can on my desk, and at the same time, my roommate could KNOW that there was not.

Subjective knowledge is a fancy name that Christians like to use to try to say that God is real FOR them, or that they have the correct, subjective answer. All it amounts to is a means by which someone can say (A & ~A) and be right.

Or in other words... nonsense.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 2:36:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 2:19:47 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/28/2009 1:29:48 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
do you believe that there is such a thing as "SUBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE"?

The term is self-contradicting. If such a thing were possible, I could KNOW that there is a Coke Can on my desk, and at the same time, my roommate could KNOW that there was not.

Subjective knowledge is a fancy name that Christians like to use to try to say that God is real FOR them, or that they have the correct, subjective answer. All it amounts to is a means by which someone can say (A & ~A) and be right.

Or in other words... nonsense.

Oh, I forgot about this interpretation. I also agree with this.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 3:21:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
So funny you mention Plantinga's "Naturalism Defeated." I was actually planning on doing that in the near future. If you would like, I would very much enjoy defending Plantinga's undefeated defeater ;).

Sure :P. Just give me a challenge or a message, whichever you prefer. However I won't have much time this and next week, I have mideterms.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 4:26:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 2:19:47 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/28/2009 1:29:48 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
do you believe that there is such a thing as "SUBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE"?

The term is self-contradicting. If such a thing were possible, I could KNOW that there is a Coke Can on my desk, and at the same time, my roommate could KNOW that there was not.

Subjective knowledge is a fancy name that Christians like to use to try to say that God is real FOR them, or that they have the correct, subjective answer. All it amounts to is a means by which someone can say (A & ~A) and be right.

Or in other words... nonsense.

Hi Tarzan,
I think the ex: of the Coke can you gave is pretty OBJECTIVE...ie. it can be shown scientifically if there is something there or not....
I was wondering what you would think about a situation like this:
What if a person says "I know I am feeling sad because I just lost a loved one." Would you say that they don't KNOW that they are sad?
...that is kind of what I mean by subjective knowledge...It is that they can know something (which is true) but that you wouldn't necessarily know...I thought other people (besides Christians) believed in the concept of "subjective knowledge" too...

As far as God's existence I would refer to my earlier link about Revelation being the source of knowledge about God... (that is not subjective knowledge but rather "spiritual knowledge").
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 4:32:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 1:38:01 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/28/2009 1:31:05 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I love when Christians attack other religions.

And Christians rely on a book that can't be verified. They also believe in a zombie giving us eternal salvation. Good luck with that.

Mormonism is'nt EVEN another religion: It's a CULT.

My sister tried to say the same thing. Apparently, she heard it in church.
Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
Cult: a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader

It can be both. And it is only a cult in your opinion because you consider it to be false and unorthodox.

My sister had no real rebuttal to this, and I don't suspect you'll have one either.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light