Is Mormon discussion more of a anti Mormon forum

[_DrW]

As stated I don't believe that people from the Middle East traveled to the arctic wasteland and there is not evidence for it.

When you guys can find evidence that Native American haplo group x DNA is found in Central an east Asia or Siberia I will recant my theory and change it to another one. But you guys can't the only you can do is make sad worthless personal attacks.

bomgeo,

If you would spend half the time reading the primary literature on the subject of Native American DNA that you spend writing nonsense about it, you would not make the ridiculous statements about the population genetics of Amerindians that you have made on this and other threads.

The depth of your ignorance and misunderstanding on this issue is nothing short of staggering.

[Guest]

Maksutov loves his nazis

Maksutov find another line National Geographic are saying that native Americans have Middle East DNA.

Why are you making a personal attack and lie about Maksutov? He does not love Nazis, he has pointed out to you many times that one of your sources is a former neo-Nazi child molester who has no credibility or standing with any scientists. Why would you twist this into the ugly accusation that Maksutove loves nazis?

That's were you guys are twisted and lying I quote research articles.

You have referenced sources from Frank Joseph who is a former neo-nazi and convicted child molester. His work is not "research". It is pseudoarchaeology and discredited by all reputable scholars who have addressed it. Once again you have accused me of lying, while refusing to deal with the lies you have fabricated against me personally. You said that I hate America and you fabricated a story about my avatar. Do you have any integrity? Let's deal with these two lies you made up about me and be honest enough to acknowledge that you do in fact reference Frank Joseph's writings and retract your accusation that I am lying.

[_JLHPROF]

Question to everyone out there it seems to me Mormon discussion is populated with a lot of people who do not believe in Mormonism the loudest voices I would say are quit hostile to the church and it's beliefs. it seems to me there are very few people on this forum who actually belief or are willing to defend the fundamental beliefs of the church.

Based on my limited exposure to this board I would say this is the site where some are hostile, some are faithful, but the majority seem to be seeking proof/denying the existence of proof on something that is ultimately a matter of faith.

A discussion about the proof/lack of proof on issues of faith. I don't see much chance of consensus ever being achieved.

[_DrW]

Based on my limited exposure to this board I would say this is the site where some are hostile, some are faithful, but the majority seem to be seeking proof/denying the existence of proof on something that is ultimately a matter of faith.

A discussion about the proof/lack of proof on issues of faith. I don't see much chance of consensus ever being achieved.

Have you seen any credible indication on this board that a consensus is being sought?

Adults who still believe in invisible magic friends sometimes show up here, mainly to proclaim their unfounded beliefs or describe their irrational rationalizations - and most of us just try to help. Now and then reality breaks through. But not often, it appears.

[_Choyo Chagas]

and i am a poor east european; romanian

Your ignorant...

please read viewtopic.php?p=21605#p21605 - if you can read - please...

When you guys can find evidence that Native American haplo group x DNA is found in Central an east Asia or Siberia I will recant my theory and change it to another one. But you guys can't the only you can do is make sad worthless personal attacks.

bomgeography ---> you guys you guys you guys
ldsfags --> leftist leftist leftist

by the way
choyo chagas --> americans americans americans

schizophrenia?

[_Fence Sitter]

Based on my limited exposure to this board I would say this is the site where some are hostile, some are faithful, but the majority seem to be seeking proof/denying the existence of proof on something that is ultimately a matter of faith.

A discussion about the proof/lack of proof on issues of faith. I don't see much chance of consensus ever being achieved.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make about this forum. Do you think what you observe here is different than other places? I have yet to see a consensus on issues of faith issues even within Mormonism itself. All one has to do is pick any thread over at MAD to see how much even believers themselves disagree.

Perhaps what you meant is that the appeal to faith based evidence is seen less as a "get out of jail free" card here than it is elsewhere.

[_JLHPROF]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make about this forum. Do you think what you observe here is different than other places? I have yet to see a consensus on issues of faith issues even within Mormonism itself. All one has to do is pick any thread over at MAD to see how much even believers themselves disagree.

Disagreement was not my point. You are right, it's everywhere.
The cries on this board seem to all start and end with "what can we prove".
Proving religion, even for a believer such as myself, always seems a futile effort.
Likewise, disproving something not based on measurable evidences seems like a strange goal.

Perhaps what you meant is that the appeal to faith based evidence is seen less as a "get out of jail free" card here than it is elsewhere.

That's as good a description as any.

[_Fence Sitter]

Disagreement was not my point. You are right, it's everywhere.
The cries on this board seem to all start and end with "what can we prove".
Proving religion, even for a believer such as myself, always seems a futile effort.
Likewise, disproving something not based on measurable evidences seems like a strange goal.

I think the "cries" on this board are more along the lines of what is acceptable as evidence and how it bears on the claims being made. And, I also think that is the same issue found in discussions about religion, even between believers of the same religion. Watching discussion after discussion at MAD, it is clear that over there, as here, people are trying to do the same thing with evidence. Arguments over there frequently revolve around what general authorities and scripture have said/say, each side giving their own opinion of how those sources should be accepted. Some giving more weight to living prophets some to dead ones and so on. Each side is measuring evidence there and, as you can see from those discussions, they are trying to prove their own opinion of what defines the Mormon religion.

[_Lemmie]

Based on my limited exposure to this board I would say this is the site where some are hostile, some are faithful, but the majority seem to be seeking proof/denying the existence of proof on something that is ultimately a matter of faith.

A discussion about the proof/lack of proof on issues of faith. I don't see much chance of consensus ever being achieved.

Have you seen any credible indication on this board that a consensus is being sought?

No, and it's surprising that it would be suggested. In fact, the most recent discussions I've seen have centered around asking someone to simply state the evidence they claimed they had. For example, in this exchange:

...unless you can back up this comment you made with some actual evidence.

"LDS belief is not based on evidence. It's based on feelings and identity."

If that was true, I wouldn't be a member of the church. I would have left years ago.

If you have some evidence, I would love to hear about it. If your belief is simply a matter of faith, I'm okay with that too, and not going to ride you about it. But please don't claim it is based on evidence if it is not. I have no problem with people who justify "faith."... I just don't like it when they claim their belief is backed up with evidence if they can't back it up with evidence.

I agree with cwald, and I've seen numerous people here make a similar statement; they have no problem with someone stating a faith-based belief. On the other hand, there will invariably be discussion and a request for details if someone states they have evidence.

(In the discussion above, it turned out that the evidence finally presented was only the idea of the anthropic principle, which doesn't really rise to the level of an acceptable definition for that word.)

[_DrW]

Proving religion, even for a believer such as myself, always seems a futile effort.

You make this statement as if it were a good thing. Does this admission not raise red flags for you?

None?

Likewise, disproving something not based on measurable evidences seems like a strange goal.

Again, secularists on this board, in the main, are not trying to disprove religious belief. They mainly question the faith-based assertions of others, and point to evidence that such assertions are contrary to the facts.

The "Gospel of Jesus Christ", as purveyed by the LDS Church, can no doubt engender warm, comfortable feelings in those who have been properly conditioned. This has nothing to do with fact, or objective reality. Any affirmation of the beliefs from which these feelings arise is a product of the conditioned brain - nothing more.

Out in the real world, many affirmative truth claims made by the LDS Church are falsifiable. Most of these, including foundational truth claims, have been falsified.

In order to believe in Mormonism, one must be able to handle the cognitive dissonance (some would say delusional ideation*) that arises as a consequence of the large number of critical foundational truth claims of the LDS Church that have been shown to be false.

Certain LDS truth claims are not falsifiable - no doubt. But to maintain faith, or indeed build a worldview, based on unfalsifiable claims would seem to require an exceeding high level of gullibility - and perhaps poor judgement or inadequate critical thinking skills as well.

This is especially true when considering all of the closely associated, and often contingent, foundational LDS truth claims that have been clearly falsified.
_________________________________

In a peer reviewed paper on a study comparing new religion members (religious cultists) to psychotic patients, researchers found that the religious "-- did not show as much florid symptomatology as the psychotic patients, but could not be differentiated from the deluded group on the number of delusional items endorsed on the Peters et al. Delusions Inventory. "

*Br J Clin Psychol. 1999 Mar;38 ( Pt 1):83-96.

In a 2006 review on the subject, Freeman noted that some 20% of the population that would not be classified as psychotic, (i.e. the non-clinical population) nonetheless exhibited clearly delusional ideation to an extent that caused them emotional or social difficulties.

*Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2006 Jun;8(3):191-204
___________

Post edited several times.