The problem with Moroni's challenge

[Guest]

-

[_subgenius]

Because atheism affords them the greatest opportunity for self-indulgence which is at the heart of every atheistic endeavor.

Although I know to many religious people who believe such crap, I would hope that you do not. This is really just a way to attack another group instead of listening to what they say and do.

by listening to what they say and do is what offers such a conclusion. Additionally, it is the only reasonable and logical conclusion one can come to when considering the basic tenets of atheism. The amoral requirement of atheism, among other requirements, ultimately reveals that atheism can be nothing other than a psychological exercise in self-indulgence while maintaining a principle that individuality and the freedom to "choose otherwise" can not exist.

[_Themis]

by listening to what they say and do is what offers such a conclusion. Additionally, it is the only reasonable and logical conclusion one can come to when considering the basic tenets of atheism. The amoral requirement of atheism, among other requirements, ultimately reveals that atheism can be nothing other than a psychological exercise in self-indulgence while maintaining a principle that individuality and the freedom to "choose otherwise" can not exist.

I did say it was just a hope. Reading your posts reveals that like some religious people(not all), you are also very closed minded. You demonstrate an almost complete lack of understanding of atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in God. It has nothing to do with what morals an atheist may or may not have. Many do a better job then religious people including LDS of controlling their appetites based on reasoning that does not involve God. I also noticed you are avoiding the Moroni issue. Not a surprise though. :)

[_Buffalo]

by listening to what they say and do is what offers such a conclusion. Additionally, it is the only reasonable and logical conclusion one can come to when considering the basic tenets of atheism. The amoral requirement of atheism, among other requirements, ultimately reveals that atheism can be nothing other than a psychological exercise in self-indulgence while maintaining a principle that individuality and the freedom to "choose otherwise" can not exist.

It's no surprise that you don't understand what atheism is. It's a common blind spot among science haters.

[_Lost Mystic]

subgenius....

I'll repost questions I posed to you that you might have missed...

Regarding your trust in moroni's challenge, and that the HG will respond to individuals differently at different times, are you suggesting that they must filter potential HG confirmations through their own brain and reason?

Apparently Joseph Smith couldn't tell the difference either when he said God would get the Book of Mormon published by some Canadian press...and upon the quest's failure, he said some inspiration is of God, and some are of Satan, and some are of man's own mind (something like that).

So what good is the HG anyway if 1. You can't recognize the "promptings" for sure, 2. They are left up to your own brain's interpretation, or 3. It's impossible to actually confirm it's from the HG and not from yourself or Satan...

So where is the validity or reliability of the Moroni's promise due to the above mentioned problems?

[_subgenius]

by listening to what they say and do is what offers such a conclusion. Additionally, it is the only reasonable and logical conclusion one can come to when considering the basic tenets of atheism. The amoral requirement of atheism, among other requirements, ultimately reveals that atheism can be nothing other than a psychological exercise in self-indulgence while maintaining a principle that individuality and the freedom to "choose otherwise" can not exist.

It's no surprise that you don't understand what atheism is. It's a common blind spot among science haters.

then by all means, explain.
and for the record, i am not a science hater...i just do not worship science.

Fact about atheism:
1. Requires a rejection of the belief in the existence of any and all deities, and that there are, in fact "no" deities.
2. The word literally means "without god"
3. Atheist confirm nothing without empirical evidence, thus the supernatural is, at best, the source of skepticism, usually the source of disregard.
4. Atheist are amoral (not immoral, but amoral).
5. Atheist are an overwhelming minority.
6. Aside from notes 1 and 2 above, atheism has no real unifying principle or meaning, they often exist just as defined by being "the contrary".
7. Atheism, when buttressed by the insistence of truth being defined only by empirical evidence and that the laws of nature can not be transgressed, logically requires that freedom to choose otherwise is an illusion and that independent original thought is impossible. Human beings are chemical reactions which can never truly "act" but must only "react" in a manner that is completely predictable and prescribed.
8. i propose that it is you that actually does not understand what atheism "is".

[_subgenius]

by listening to what they say and do is what offers such a conclusion. Additionally, it is the only reasonable and logical conclusion one can come to when considering the basic tenets of atheism. The amoral requirement of atheism, among other requirements, ultimately reveals that atheism can be nothing other than a psychological exercise in self-indulgence while maintaining a principle that individuality and the freedom to "choose otherwise" can not exist.

I did say it was just a hope. Reading your posts reveals that like some religious people(not all), you are also very closed minded. You demonstrate an almost complete lack of understanding of atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in God. It has nothing to do with what morals an atheist may or may not have. Many do a better job then religious people including LDS of controlling their appetites based on reasoning that does not involve God. I also noticed you are avoiding the Moroni issue. Not a surprise though. :)

see my buffalo response.
and i believe i have addressed the Moroni issue, but please, be specific as to where you think i have not.

[_subgenius]

subgenius....

I'll repost questions I posed to you that you might have missed...

Regarding your trust in moroni's challenge, and that the HG will respond to individuals differently at different times, are you suggesting that they must filter potential HG confirmations through their own brain and reason?

no, i am not suggesting any position on filtering as you describe it.

Apparently Joseph Smith couldn't tell the difference either when he said God would get the Book of Mormon published by some Canadian press...and upon the quest's failure, he said some inspiration is of God, and some are of Satan, and some are of man's own mind (something like that).

I am in no position to determine what Joseph Smith could tell the difference in. But i would agree with the latter statement which is specific about "inspiration".

So what good is the HG anyway if 1. You can't recognize the "promptings" for sure, 2. They are left up to your own brain's interpretation, or 3. It's impossible to actually confirm it's from the HG and not from yourself or Satan...

1. recognizing the HG is irrelevant to the question of whether the HG prompts you or not. The failure to observe does not mean it is non-existent, correct?
2. The "brain's interpretation" is a separate notion, and in fact may be the source of the confusion rather than the clarity.
3. No, it is not impossible, difficult at times, but not impossible. Satan is incapable, by definition, of bringing peace and freedom. The truth is found in knowledge which removes any question of doubt, a task the Satan can not accomplish. I would say the most daunting task in truly "knowing" the prompting of the HG is diminishing the ego. One must recognize that "they" will never truly know, one must attempt to teach themselves what they do not "know"...surely you must admit that there is not one "thought" you have which is wholly true, correct?

So where is the validity or reliability of the Moroni's promise due to the above mentioned problems?

in its application.
Consider a child learning to walk. When he falls down does that mean walking is not true?

[_Buffalo]

then by all means, explain.
and for the record, i am not a science hater...i just do not worship science.

Fact about atheism:
1. Requires a rejection of the belief in the existence of any and all deities, and that there are, in fact "no" deities.

No, you went to far. It's simply lack of belief. That doesn't mean you have to say there are for sure no deities.

2. The word literally means "without god"

Yes.


3. Atheist confirm nothing without empirical evidence, thus the supernatural is, at best, the source of skepticism, usually the source of disregard.

An exaggeration and not implicit to atheism, but generally true

4. Atheist are amoral (not immoral, but amoral).

Completely false


5. Atheist are an overwhelming minority.

True. Though we've got the 0-2 age group locked up in the atheist category.

6. Aside from notes 1 and 2 above, atheism has no real unifying principle or meaning, they often exist just as defined by being "the contrary".

Actually, just number 2

7. Atheism, when buttressed by the insistence of truth being defined only by empirical evidence and that the laws of nature can not be transgressed, logically requires that freedom to choose otherwise is an illusion and that independent original thought is impossible. Human beings are chemical reactions which can never truly "act" but must only "react" in a manner that is completely predictable and prescribed.

Has nothing to do with atheism.

8. i propose that it is you that actually does not understand what atheism "is".

As an atheist who just schooled you on atheism, I reject that premise

:)

[_NeoMorm]

My quote above is in reference to why leaders of other Churches wouldn't get their members to pray about the Book of Mormon. I'm willing to admit that it might not be as clear cut as I have stated above, but they appear to be reasonable possibilities. An additional answer may be that they actually believe Satan is capable of answering people's prayers and leading people astray in that way. While they will admit to faith in their own religion it is unlikely for them to exercise any faith in the Book of Mormon because there is no reason for them to.

I was asking sardonically why not adopt the same mind-f*** technique that Mormons are supposedly doing with the Book of Mormon? And no I don't think they would be above such trickery either.

I think however for someone not already of the Mormon faith it would be difficult to cast enough doubt on the evidences against the Book of Mormon. It may be easy for mopologists to turn horses into tapirs, or swords into the macuahuitl or even the two Cumorahs theory. While the mopologists may be able to convince members looking for a way to believe these answers are not convincing to people who have no reason to believe in the first place.

Not to mention the fact that they will also consider Joseph Smith as an individual and his treasure hunting, glass looking and polygamy along with polyandry don't reflect well. There is the additional fact that Mormonism made such huge departures from traditional Christianity which they obviously will not like. I think you could argue that the Book of Mormon may never be proved, but as a historical record it has already been disproved and it would be hard to get anyone but a believing Mormon to suspend their disbelief.

Ok, but then the Mormon side, they will list some of the things they use to argue for the Book of Mormon, that it testifies of Christ, that its fruits are good, that Joseph Smith could never have written it with his Education, etc. I am not arguing for or against here really - only stating that if you allow for Faith it would have to be unprovable, like Douglas Adams Babel Fish.

3) They don't ask their members to pray about the Koran or Dianetics either.

These factions are not currently a great threat to them, so why bother.

I would argue that Mormonism isn't even a small threat to them either.
Hasa Diga Eebowai

I can't even partially agree with that one, at least not in the Bible Belt or southwest. Maybe elsewhere, but in conversations with former and current "christian" peoples I have heard tell of many youth retreats where the primary topic taught was not Christ but anti-mormonism. Mormonism is at least on the radar.