I think that any belief system should be able to stand up on its own rather than try to deflect criticism by arguing equivalence.
If all relgions have serious credibility problems, then Mormonism/LDS is one too many. A new and improved religion should be new and improved. But this one is so obviously made up that it’s a little suprising that a lot of people would be lured away from whichever “cultural default” religions. And with LDS being the umpteenth mutually exclusive variation while being no less believable, it would seem to help drag down the credibility of religious belief systems in general.
What is surprising about that? The choice to have religious faith is not based in logic, it is based in belief. People are “lured” to other religions all the time. What did you think the term “born again Christian” meant? What did you think the word “convert” meant?
Again, belief is based on faith, not logic. People do not have faith because they consider the ideas “credible”. Preachers do not give sermons explaining why it is eminently logical and scientific that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. I’ve never heard anyone presenting empirical scientific evidence for Vishnu. Exactly what is “credible” about other belief systems that you think Mormonism is dragging down?
Really, you guys got nothing, except a bias against a particular religion. Give it up already.
It took me this long to figure out what it was that bugged me about this statement. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
You view a person’s rights to be higher in value than a person. A person’s rights are sacred, but the person is worthless if they don’t believe what you deem to be proper beliefs.
So if a person surrenders their “precious human heritage of rational thought” and adopts a belief you don’t agree with, you have no value for that person whatsoever. In fact, that person has a negative value to you - you feel “nothing but contempt” - no compassion, no empathy, no positive influence.
Is this what you’re saying? 'Cause, you know, this can be used to justify all kinds of bad behavior. Ironic, given that some of the more rabid atheists use the argument that religion is bad because religion promotes violence.
You sound like a real charming kind of dude. I’m so glad I don’t have to meet you in person.
Of course they do. To have faith is to agree that it’s credible.
Not “other” belief systems, ALL belief systems. If AT BEST Mormonism is NO WORSE than other belief systems and we KNOW it’s a pack of lies then clearly ALL religion is exposed as a pack of lies thanks to Mormonism.
If you want to honor God, then don’t make stuff up in his name or the end result is less honor to God all the way around.
Absolutely not. “Faith”, by its very definition, is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, the veritable opposite of credibility.
To have faith is to believe a thing regardless of evidence.
To agree that a thing is credible is to believe it based on evidence.
That makes no sense. I’ll ask again: Exactly what is “credible” about any belief systems that you think Mormonism is dragging down?
How is this complaint specific to the Mormon religion?
No. For somethingto be credible, (literally, “able to be believed”), it is only necessary that the believer not find an impediment to belief. People who believe in a virgin birth or a resurrection may be relying on an expectaion that their sources for that belief are reliable, but they are hardly relying on proof or material evidence.
I suspect that you may have a slightly skewed perception of the word “credible.” Clearly, to a person who requires material evidence, a lack of such evidence makes a concept incredible to that person, but the same concept may be quite credble (believable) to a person who does not demand the same evidence.
Tom, your indulgent definition of the word “credible” is typical of the “intellectual free ride” that religion gets on these boards and in society in particular.
You are essentially saying that “credible” implies no objective standard outside of each individual’s willingness to believe something.
The minute a person sees no objection to believing something, as soon as they feel they have it on good enough authority, then it is “credible”???
Therefore, the belief by a mental patient that he is Napoleon is “credible” by your definition. If he further argues that his identity was confirmed by the extra-terrestrial who speaks to him through his toothbrush and in whom he has utmost faith, then he suits your definition of a person holding a “credible” belief with all the evidentiary support *he * considers necessary.
But is that really all “credible” means? :dubious: I have before me a copy of Webster’s Dictionary that defines “credible” as “worthy of credit; probable”.
Note the difference here. There is an inference that something we qualify as “credible” must meet certain objective, evidentiary rules founded in science, and in common sense. It needs objective evidence to make it worthy of credit, to demonstrate that probability is in its favour.
To take a similar example, “Commendable” means “worthy of praise”. Now, we know that convicts who have killed policemen are often regarded as deserving of praise by other inmates in the prison system. But no normal person would apply the word “commendable” to the murder of a policeman. Obviously, we are applying an independent standard of commendability that is derived from morality, decency and common sense. The fact that the murder of a policeman may strike some thugs as “worthy of praise” hardly qualifies the act as “commendable”.
Now, Mormons choose to believe the BofM’s stories of a Christian Nephite civilization in North America from 33 to 420 CE, or that millions of “Jahredites” libved in the Americas, worked in iron, and perished by the sword, in spite of the fact that their beliefs are not supported by a shred of archeological evidence. Archeologists can find Indian villages of a few huts that exsited 5,000 years ago but we can’t find Nephite cities that existed until 420 CE??? :dubious:
If Mormonism did not exist as an established religion, and therefore enjoy this “benefit of clergy” we give to the irrational beliefs of religion, people who believe what they believe about the history of pre-Columbian America would be considered crackpots. And further to believe that this information comes from gold plates that Joseph Smith found in the ground at the prompting of an angel would qualify these believers as either gullible or crazy.
Just because large numbers of people believe something and are satisfied that they have this “truth” on good authority does not justify using the adjective “credible” to describe their views. After all, over a billion Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God. Billions of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. believe he was not. Can both of these mutually contradictory propositions be “credible” using Tomndeb’s definition of the word?
But the sources aren’t reliable. Most biblical sources are anonymous, most likely not first hand, and in many cases heavily reworked. There are even indications that parts are taken from original sources that are no longer in existence. To argue the historic reliability of the Bible is a fool’s errand.
Again, religious belief is based on faith, not the reliability of the text.
I think you forgot what we’re comparing. Remember that I was responding to squeels’ assertion that Mormonism’s lack of credibility is somehow “dragging down” all religion. We’re not comparing the credibility of materialism to the credibility of religion; we’re comparing the credibility of Mormonism to the credibility of all other religions.
To say that one religion is not credible because its holy book describes submarines, non-existent places, miracles, etc. and then to turn around and say another religion that describes virgin births, dead people coming back to life, other miracles, etc. is credible, makes no sense.
People believe these things because they take a leap of faith in doing so. The only Christians who I have ever heard argue that they believe because of the scientific and historical accuracy of the Bible are fundamentalists, and they also literally believe in Noah’s Ark and that the earth was created in a week.
This Mormon thread seems to be more or less dying out, largely because the Mormon embusques like Dangermom prefer to remain safely in the LDS theology thread where they can discuss such scientific certainties as what Jesus meant by “other sheep” or celestial marriages on other planets when we die. They will fight in Cuckoo Cloud Land all we want, but will not come down to Earth and explain why the Book of Mormon claims MILLIONS of people in America lived in societies that worked with iron and were slaughtered with swords, when not a single Aboriginal example of iron or iron swords has ever been found in pre-Columbian America. Rather trhan enagage in a battle of wits with the unarmed, I will just cap off my participation in this thread with two relevant quotes.
“When was the last time someone was criticized for not “respecting” another person’s unfounded beliefs about physics or history?” (-Sam Harris, The End of Faith).
“…extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens, Slate Magazine, Oct. 20, 2003). See this article
I wrote it when I was in Pittsburgh. Leap Year there, and all…grumble grumble…
You are correct of course, my apologies. I was taught that too. Although we could easily debate- in another thread- whether it was BC 1 or The Great Unaccounted For Year Zero.
Consider a person who will believe a thing regardless of evidence, and even in the face of significant (even overwhelming) evidence against that thing. Is it unreasonable to consider that person a fool? Is it reasonable to expect such a person to be able to participate safely in society? Such people could not be considered reasonable members of a jury since they deny the value of evidence. They should not vote since their belief proves they cannot tell fact from fiction.
If faith is to believe without any evidence* then faith is insanity.
*(evidence can be personal and not readily measured or expressed to others)
Certainly, “through the ages” implies a continuing action that is not supported by history. The prime period for the trials and executions of witches was limited to about 100 years flanking 1600, with men making up about 25% of the victims.
Even such notorious actions as the burning of Jeanne d’Arc were carried out to execute a “heretic,” not a “witch.”
I realize that we need to be accurate. There is no point in saying that 9 million women were killed as witches when it was 50,000. But there is something disrespectful to the innocent dead and almost obscene about haggling over the numbers. It reminds me of Adolph Eichman saying at his trial that he did not kill 6 million Jews, but more like 4 million.
Again, I suppose we must make a distinction between those executed for witchcraft and those executed for heresy. But I wonder if the distinction is really all that relevant except to students of legal history? I am reminded of the stupid and joke about the law student who is asked the difference between incest, adultery and fornication and says, “I dunno, they all feel the same to me.”
I realize that this is a very tall order, but has anyone ever attempted a TOTAL number of people who were murdered as a result of religion?
I mean EVERYONE from heretics and witches to all the people who died in the Thirty Years’ War, to all the Hindus and Muslims who died in communal fighting in southern Asia from 1947 to the present. How about including the people who die not only from suicide bombing in Israel and Israeli bombings of Arabs, but also women in Africa who die in unwanted pregnancies because the local Catholic-run hospitals will not give them access to birth control? Or the people who die of AIDS in countries where the Catholic Church opposes the distribution of condoms?
Of course we would include Northern Ireland, the death toll from September 11. I would even count Mormon Founder Jospeh Smith. While he is considered a “martyr” by the Mormons, he is technically a person murdered by religious hatred because the mob in Illinois simply killed him. A martyr is usually someone who chooses to die for his faith.
Did you know that almost every area of the world that has a significant Muslim population has, or has recently had, an ongoing conflict with its non-Muslim neighbours? I am sure that Islam alone would add enormously to the death toll.
I realize that this would be almost as involved and difficult as the genome mapping project, but it would be interesting to know how many millions of deaths could be laid at the feet of religion.
I take your point, but if the real figure has been inflated 180-fold, it’s hardly out of place to mention it and perhaps call into question the motives for the gross exaggeration.
True, which is why I was not haggling over numbers, (Cartooniverse provided no numbers), but noting that the idea that European society (with or without the encouragement of one church or another) did not actually engage in murdering persons for being witches for 1800 years. (Even one death was far too many.) The killings associated with that phenomenon were pretty much focused on a fairly short period, limited to just a few countries, and were much more closely identified by social upheaval than actual religious beliefs. There is no question that religion played a large role in the phenomenon, but it appears to be more associated with the cultural disintegration of mutual understanding than from theology. (Just as the later witch hunts in America, beginning in the 1920s and exploding in the 1950s to taper off and later be ridiculed, occurred in the cultural conflict regarding whether unfettered Capitalism + Democracy was a god-ordained way of life or whether one could challenge that belief (from the radical notions of Marxist Communism or Anarchism to the mere course-altering challenges of trade unionism) without threatening the very existence of society.)
