Exmormon documentary is coming!

[_Polygamy Porter]

http://www.messermedia.com/ExmoTrailer.html


*dancing*


Uh huh, uh huh, oh yeah, uh huh!

The year of the exmormon is upon us!!!!

[_Mephitus]

i can't wait to see it. Im gonna buy a couple copies. (gifts)

[_why me]

This documentary has been discussed quite indepth at MAD. Although the documentary looks interesting, it seems to be the standard stuff with people claiming the church is not true. However, since the church has not been proven false, not by science or history, the premise for the documentary is false. And two false notions never make a right.

The LDS church has not been proven false and so one cannot say that it is false. But we can say three simple words: I don't know.

[_silentkid]

This documentary has been discussed quite indepth at MAD. Although the documentary looks interesting, it seems to be the standard stuff with people claiming the church is not true. However, since the church has not been proven false, not by science or history, the premise for the documentary is false. And two false notions never make a right.

The LDS church has not been proven false and so one cannot say that it is false. But we can say three simple words: I don't know.

Why me, your logic is all mixed up. The burden of proof lies with the church, not the church's critics. In other words, it is not the onus of the critics, science, or history to prove the church false (proving a negative is also a fallacy). The burden lies with the church to provide statistically significant evidence that it's truth claims are valid (i.e. providing archaeological evidence for Nephite/Lamanite civilizations).

Let's look at this another way. A documentary discussing the problems with believing in the existence of unicorns has come out. By your logic, this documentary would be misleading because there is no way to prove by science or history that unicorns have, in fact, never existed. Mountains of evidence suggest an extremely high probability that the claims of "unicorn witnesses" are false, but because (again, by your logic) it hasn't been proven, there is still sufficient room for belief. We can only say "I don't know".

[_why me]

This documentary has been discussed quite indepth at MAD. Although the documentary looks interesting, it seems to be the standard stuff with people claiming the church is not true. However, since the church has not been proven false, not by science or history, the premise for the documentary is false. And two false notions never make a right.

The LDS church has not been proven false and so one cannot say that it is false. But we can say three simple words: I don't know.

Why me, your logic is all mixed up. The burden of proof lies with the church, not the church's critics. In other words, it is not the onus of the critics, science, or history to prove the church false (proving a negative is also a fallacy). The burden lies with the church to provide statistically significant evidence that it's truth claims are valid (i.e. providing archaeological evidence for Nephite/Lamanite civilizations).

Let's look at this another way. A documentary discussing the problems with believing in the existence of unicorns has come out. By your logic, this documentary would be misleading because there is no way to prove by science or history that unicorns have, in fact, never existed. Mountains of evidence suggest an extremely high probability that the claims of "unicorn witnesses" are false, but because (again, by your logic) it hasn't been proven, there is still sufficient room for belief. We can only say "I don't know".

I see it a different way. If LDS believe their church to be the true church of god, it is not up to them to prove it. And for many the poof comes from within. And this is legitimate proof as is the witness that is born by people praying about the book.

However, for the critic it is up to them to prove the book of moron false and by doing so, they will then prove the church false. But that hasn't happened yet and it may never will. If I believe in Marxism as truth, it is not up to me to prove that I am correct but it is up to you to prove me wrong. The burden of proof rests with you.

And one can not compare unicorns to the LDS church since, I can see a church but not the unicorn. But do unicorns exist? Who knows...you tell me.

[_silentkid]

I see it a different way. If LDS believe their church to be the true church of god, it is not up to them to prove it. And for many the poof comes from within. And this is legitimate proof as is the witness that is born by people praying about the book.

However, for the critic it is up to them to prove the book of moron false and by doing so, they will then prove the church false. But that hasn't happened yet and it may never will. If I believe in Marxism as truth, it is not up to me to prove that I am correct but it is up to you to prove me wrong. The burden of proof rests with you.

And one can not compare unicorns to the LDS church since, I can see a church but not the unicorn. But do unicorns exist? Who knows...you tell me.

You misunderstood my point. I wasn't comparing the LDS church to unicorns, I was making the point that you can't prove something false. By your logic, everything is true because it can't be absolutely proven false...the existence of Santa Claus, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, aliens, dragons, etc. should be not be discounted. What type of evidence would be required to prove the Book of Mormon false?

Again, with your Marxism example, you are shifting the burden of proof. Google logical fallacies and read about the burden of proof fallacy. That may yield a better explanation than mine.

[_Who Knows]

The fallacy of negative proof:

This is a fallacy whereby the normal burden of proof is reversed. It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. Formally, the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea.

I wouldn't expect anything less from Why Me. ;)

[_silentkid]

The fallacy of negative proof:

This is a fallacy whereby the normal burden of proof is reversed. It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. Formally, the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea.

I wouldn't expect anything less from Why Me. ;)

Thanks, Who Knows. I was beginning to feel like my point wasn't getting across.

[_why me]

I see it a different way. If LDS believe their church to be the true church of god, it is not up to them to prove it. And for many the poof comes from within. And this is legitimate proof as is the witness that is born by people praying about the book.

However, for the critic it is up to them to prove the book of moron false and by doing so, they will then prove the church false. But that hasn't happened yet and it may never will. If I believe in Marxism as truth, it is not up to me to prove that I am correct but it is up to you to prove me wrong. The burden of proof rests with you.

And one can not compare unicorns to the LDS church since, I can see a church but not the unicorn. But do unicorns exist? Who knows...you tell me.

You misunderstood my point. I wasn't comparing the LDS church to unicorns, I was making the point that you can't prove something false. By your logic, everything is true because it can't be absolutely proven false...the existence of Santa Claus, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, aliens, dragons, etc. should be not be discounted. What type of evidence would be required to prove the Book of Mormon false?

Again, with your Marxism example, you are shifting the burden of proof. Google logical fallacies and read about the burden of proof fallacy. That may yield a better explanation than mine.

The LDS do not attempt to prove the LDS church true. That is the job for the holy ghost. The LDS believe in the Book of Mormon and many have received a witness to that effect. Hence, for them it is true.

Now your job is to prove their witness false, and you can do this by proven the Book of Mormon false. If you cannot do that, than the witness that was received by the person is a valid witness.

My marxism example was just a hypothetical. Nothing more. I do believe that dragons are now proven false as santa clause has been 'proven' false. As have fairies etc. But the LDS church hasn't. You goal is to prove the LDS church false, so that it can be put with santa, the tooth fairly and the easter bunny. But that is not my job. For many LDS, the holy ghost has proven the church true. What to do? The burden is to prove them wrong.

[_why me]

The fallacy of negative proof:

This is a fallacy whereby the normal burden of proof is reversed. It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. Formally, the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea.

I wouldn't expect anything less from Why Me. ;)

Negative proof sounds good to me. I have to remember to use it on this board. ;=)