Stack Overflow reputation is cumulative. This means that if two people are providing answers of the same quality and at the same rate over time, the folks who have been there longest will have higher reputations, and that the higher reputation will reflect only tenure. Not any kind of quality.
If you want to look at quality, you should be looking at a metric that is something like (total reputation / number of months active). Even this is imperfect of course, since if people take a hiatus or something that will present the appearance of worse quality using this metric.
I was going to say that this fatal flaw invalidated the conclusions because the correlation between reputation and age just reflected the older people being around longer. The problem with that is that Stack Overflow opened in 2008. That's not enough time to explain a linear trend that tracks from age 16 to nearly age 50, but the final conclusion "So, senior coders earn their higher reputation by providing more answers, not by having answers of (significantly) higher quality." should still be re-examined with tenure-controlled analysis to try and see whether older aged members have been members longer.
the question there is whether the US federal government has lawful authority under the Constitution to order people to buy things
Well, the local government here forces me to pay for fire service.
You and the OP are both being unnecessarily vague and inaccurate.
The question is whether the US federal government has the authority to tell one person to purchase something from another private entity.
The local government isn't forcing you to buy something. It's forcing you to pay taxes (which it can do) and then it's providing a service (which it also can do). Even though it looks similar, paying taxes + receiving a public benefit != purchasing a consumer good.
You don't need special glasses to see a 3d-movie in 2d. The 3d glasses work fine. They did for me anyway.
I've got various eye-problems related to a severe infection I had as an infant. I've had surgery twice to try and correct my lazy-eye. And I'm totally immune to all kinds of 3d (3d movies, magic eye, etc.). Last time I went to the optometrist she explained that during the years where my eyes were crossed I developed a pyschological "blind spot". Since the eyes weren't pointing the same direction, I could either see double or just shut off the signal from one eye at a time. My brain opted for the latter.
Since my eyes are straight now the problem is theoretically something I could train my brain to stop doing, but I've never had any luck with the eye-exercises they gave me.
I went to see Avatar in 2d. Then I went to see it in 3d. The only difference at all for me was that in the 3d version if I took off the 3d glasses the whole screen looked fuzzy. If I kept them on nothing was in 3d, but the polarization meant that at least I could see the 2d images clearly.
That is just wrong. In cultures where the notion of a supreme being has never been considered or is otherwise not a notion that enters their culture in the slightest, where then do these people fall?
Obviously if you've got no notion of theism you fall outside the spectrum of beliefs about God entirely. I coudl see why you'd want to call such folks "atheist", but unfortunately the term is already in use. You'd have to call them "nontheists" or something to avoid confusion. That would add a fourth option. There's no problem with that. The three options I provided are the three positions you can take on theism. For, against, neutral. Being unaware of theism obviously means you can't take a position on it, so it'd be off the chart.
Where's the problem here?
In any case, the rejection of an idea is not a religion any more than not liking football is a sport.
You can prove anything by analogy. Let's get back to some actual definitions. Theism: Positive belief that there is a God. Weak Atheism: Rejection of theism - makes no positive statement about God. Strong Atheism: Not only a rejection of theism, but in addition makes the positive statement that God does not exist.
Now let's define religion: A system of belief that makes claims about the supernatural which can not be substantiated by science.
So according to that definition weak atheism is not a religion, but strong atheism is.
You're going about this all wrong. The negative claim (fairies don't exist) cannot exist without the positive claim (fairies do exist) being made first. You can't say that you don't believe in god unless someone first makes the claim that god does exist. The claim and burden of proof both fall on the "god exists" camp.
Your claim that you need to argue that something exists before you can argue that it doesn't exist is manufactured hogswash to try and shift the burden of proof onto the theist camp. If you have to try and set up conditions at the start of a debate where your opponent has to do more work than you do that's a pretty good indicator that your argument itself is pretty weak.
In actual logic there's no reason at all that you have to argue for something to exist before you can argue against it.
Person A: Here's a definitino for God. [Provides a definition.] Person B: So do you believe God exists? Person A: Nope. I just think it's an interesting concept. Person B: Well, I think God doesn't exist. [Provides reasoning.]
You see how it was totally unnecessary to say God exists before arguing that He doesn't? All that is necessary is a definition so you have a concept to argue about.
The claim is that god exists, not that he doesn't exist. Person A says to Person B, I believe god exists. Here's why. Person B says, your evidence is not sufficient enough to support your claim. Person B is not making a claim. He is rejecting the claim made by Person A based on lack of evidence.
You are either deliberately employing sleight of hand to try and build your case, or you simply haven't grasped the distinction between strong (positive) and weak (negative) atheism. Here are the definitions again:
Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism. Historically, the terms positive and negative atheism have been used for this distinction, where "positive" atheism refers to the specific belief that gods do not exist, and "negative" atheism refers merely to an absence of belief in gods.
So, if Person B understood logic and was honest, this is how the conversation would play out.
Person A: I believe in God. [Presents reasoning.] Person B: I find your reasoning unconvincing, so I fail to accept your conclusion. I do not believe in God. (WEAK ATHEISM) Person A: So you believe God doesn't exist? (STRONG ATHEISM) Person B: Not necessarily. If I wanted to make a positive claim that God doesn't exist (STRONG ATHEISM) I'd have to build an argument to do so. I don't feel like doing that. So I'm just going to observe that your reasoning is weak, fail to accept your conclusion, and be content with disbelief regarding God (WEAK ATHEISM) rather than belief that He does not exist (STRONG ATHEISM).
You might also notice that I'm saying "fail to accept" rather than "reject". This is also basic logic. If an argument is invalid (e.g. the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises) or unsound (e.g. some of the premises are not true) than you can reject the argument. You can not, however, reject the conclusion. You can simply say that the argument didn't prove the conclusion. The conclusion may or may not be true by some other reasoning.
For example:
1. The American flag is red, white and blue. 2. All flags with the color red in them are constitutional republics. C. America is a constitutional republic.
Premise 2 is obviously false so the argument is unsound. But if you were to conclude that because the argument is unsound the conclusion must be false you'd be making your own logical error. So if someone presents an argument from God and you observe that the argument doesn't work you can't automatically assume the conclusion is false (STRONG ATHE
Therefore anyone who "only believes what is proven" believes...
nothing at all.
I think that's a good point, but you're only rejecting epistemological certainty. As long as you're willing to live without certainty, you don't necessarily have to accept God or anything else without proof. This makes room for atheism as a rational belief system, but also reduces all of science to faith (where "faith" is defined as "believe in something based on good reason, but without certainty")
The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.
With you so far.
You can't shift the burden of proof to the negative argument, because the negative cannot be proven.
That's a total non sequitor. Just because you can't prove the non-existence of faeries doesn't mean you get to assume they don't exist until someone does. There's no logic there at all.
Go back to your first statement and stick to it. The one making the claim has the burden of the proof. Any claim.
If your claim is "God exists" or "Faeries exist" you have a burden of proof. If your claim is "God doesn't exist" or "Faeries don't exist" you're still making a claim and you still have the burden of proof.
The fact that it's harder to proof a negative (hard, not impossible) doesn't result in some kind of Celestial Logic Fairy compensating by easing the burden of proof.
In the case of god, what we have is a claim being made by believers that their god exists. They have to prove their case. Atheist or agnostics don't have to disprove it.
Agnostics don't. Some atheists do. If you take the weak atheist position ("I don't believe in God") you have nothing to prove because you're not making a claim. If you take the strong atheist position ("I believe God does not exist") than you've made a claim and (see your original point) you get the burden of proof that comes with that claim.
If the probability seems low enough, you can safely say that the claim is most likely not true given the current evidence.
I agree with you here too, but you're contradicting your earlier statements. If an event has an extremely low probability that *is* reason to believe it is false from basic probability theory.
Define event G to be "God exists". If you ascertain that P(G) =.01 (just for kicks and giggles) than it's a matter of simple algebra to find P(~G) =.99 and simple logic to deduce that ~G corresponds to "God doesn't exist".
So yeah, if you find that the chance of God existing is very low you've got ample reason to assert the positive claim that He doesn't exist, but you're doing so by addressing your burden of proof, not by default.
Any religion which rejects Jesus as God is automatically incompatible with Christianity.
If you'd said that in the first place I wouldn't have argued the point. That's just true from definition. But you brought up the Trinity. That's a different matter entirely, because the location of the Trinity within Christian orthodoxy is a controversial topic.
Whether or not you are aware of it, this identical argument (that any one who rejects the Trinity isn't really worshiping the same God as the true Christians) is a lynch-pin in the Baptists explaining why Mormons are an evil devil cult rather than a different branch of Christianity.
Burden of proof swing both ways. The burden of proof "I believe fairies exist!" is the same as the burden of proof "I believe fairies don't exist!" The default position should be: "I have no belief about faeiries one way or the other."
That is scientific skepticism.
Atheists just think there is not enough evidence to support the proposition, and the probability of there being such a being is very low.
Some atheists have that mentality, but the loud ones are actually quite evangelical in their proactive claims of God's non-existence.
I'm not attacking atheism or atheists, mind you. I've got no beef with either one in general. I'm just annoyed with the trendy neo-orthodoxy of atheism that treats acceptance of the proposition "It is a fact that God does not exist" as though it were the starting point.
The Palestinians are just pawns for the Arabs, who are only posturing as anti-Israel to quell their own internal radicals. Well, now they are pawns for the Persians, which just makes the whole thing more complex.
Sure, Muslims and Jews historically don't get along, but neither do Arabs and Persians. So now it's a three-way battle.
Muslims worship a God which is not triune. Therefore, the Muslim God cannot be the Christian God.
From your response I can tell you are a Southern Baptist who has been exposed to "The Mormon Question" or know someone who has. It saddens me to see you so naively misled. Using the doctrine of the Trinity as a bright-line distinction between Mormons and Christians (or Muslims and Christians in this case) might be the kind of comforting safety blanked that lets you rest easy, but sadly it has no basis in fact.
The fact is that there's no such thing as the Trinity in the Bible.
"The formal doctrine of the trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament." - Harper's Bible Dictionary (Protestant Source)
"The formulation of 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century... Among Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - New Catholic Encyclopedia (Catholic Source)
The Bible's teaching on God's nature is ambiguous. Sure, Christ says he's "one with the Father", but then he also prays that his disciples will be one in the same sense of the word, which seriously jeopardizes subsequent metaphysical gymnastics required to invent the "one in three, three in one" formulation. At best the Bible is compatible with the Trinity, but it most certainly doesn't require it or preach it.
First you have to realize that there legitimately are three positions to take with respect to God:
1. Affirm existence 2. Deny existence 3. Fail to affirm/deny existence
Atheism is often used to refer to both 2 and 3, but properly speaking it should be #2. Furthermore, type #3 atheism never got anyone killed. Type #2 atheism contains the pop culture, Richard Dawkins, goose-stepping, fundamentalist variety that does nobody any good. It also includes some decent folk, but it's where you find the crazies.
It's also worth pointing out that atheism of the #2 variety is essentially a religion. It has a central doctrine about God and espouses it without proof. That works for me.
I can see how you would believe that, and I don't discount the notion completely. But looking as Smith's career, it's clear that he always thought big.
I should specify my intentions: I don't think that I can prove that Smith acted out of altruism. I think the best I can hope to do is offer an alternative reading that also fits the facts. I understood your original argument to be "the man got money and sex, so obviously that was his motive". By showing that he didn't get money and may or may not have gotten sex I think I can convincingly argue that your original position that it's an open-shut case of lust and greed is false. But I can't actually argue that my competing hypothesis is an obvious and unassailable replacement.
I understand that.
It seems that your argument has gained some subtlety as we've progressed (although I'm sure it's only your tone/style that's changed and that you've had the more sophisticated argument the whole time). And I don't really have a problem with this more sublte version. I certainly don't think Smith's reputation is, from an unbiased perspective, beyond reproach. Quite the opposite. There is much in it that looks shady.
So as the questions become more complex my motivation for arguing with you decrease. I think reasonable people can draw disparate conclusions about Smith. I also have to admit that you've clearly done more research than I have on this topic. Mormon apologetics breaks down into roughly 3 categories:
1. early Christianity 2. Book of Mormon/Bible studies (textual analysis of the Book of Mormon itself) 3. early Mormon history
I'm weakest on #3, and I'm not a professional in any of the three categories. I find the first 2 much more interesting. And much less troubling. (I can be honest that I find much in the history of my Church deeply disconcerting.)
I'm not saying that Smith was unaware of his detractors, or even that he was physically separated from them all the time. I'm talking more about the sort of separation that separates you and I. I think he put his enemies into a tiny box marked "people I don't have to respect or listen to at all", and listened primarily to those who told him he was The Lord's Prophet.
I see. Instead of talking about the impact on his happiness you're talking about the impact on his self-perception. I can't really argue with that.
Had you even skimmed those links,
I did read them. I would not disrespect you by ignoring your evidence. It was disconcerting enough that at this point it goes beyond an internet conversation for me and into real-world research. I would like to know actual sources so I can read the information myself.
What you wrote was extremely convincing. As I said earlier, this is not my strong point and from the evidence provided you've clearly won this round. What's more important than winning or losing, however, is that your evidence is strong and therefore has a better claim on reflecting the reality of what happened.
I've heard of "Sacred Loneliness", but I haven't read it yet. I will certainly take the time to do more research into this arena. So, even though it's not comfortable to research this stuff, I have to say thanks for being as well-informed as you have been.
Another thing that I think undermines your argument: why did Smith marry so many, and usually so young?
Anyway, just out of curiosity, what have you read from Mormon scholars responding to the accusations that polygamy was about sex? What have you read from the Mormon perspective about why polygamy was practiced? You seem very well-read on the anti side, I'm just curios what you've read from the Mormon side.
Again, you seem to be claiming that a non-inspired Joseph Smith would have had both the foresight to foresee the consequences of his actions and the temperament needed to avoid the unpleasant courses.
Any rational human being could foresee the consequences of his actions. Maybe not the initial reaction to announcing he had plates and had seen an angel, but once he made those claims and got his feed back (universal derision and the first attempts on his life) it was no longer a guessing game as to what the results from continuing on this course would be.
And I'm making no claims about his tempermant. I'm simply saying that being motivated by greed (for money or power) or lust does not make sense in light of the fact that he could easily have had more of both and avoided some or all of the persecutions in his life.
It's not a question of king for day or peasent for a year, it's a qusetion of king for a few years or king for a day. It's irrational to say his motivation was that he wanted to be a king, and that therefore he chose king for a day over king for a few years.
I think you're overestimating both the economic opportunities available to 19th century writers and the literary merits of the Book of Mormon.
Neither. I'm not saying he could have gotten rich off of the proceeds of the book. I'm saying he could have founded a religion with much less hassle by avoiding the whole angel story. There were tons of restorationist congregations staring in the early 19th century, and some got rather large. Given his talents (his people skills, as you put it) he could easily have creatd one of those and lived in comfort and respectability and wealth and power all his days.
That's one of the reasons why your "most people hated him" argument falls flat for me. Smith was kind of like George Bush today, spending most of his time surrounded by loyalists and admirers. So what if most of the world hates you, so long as the people nearest you are telling you that you're wonderful and your enemies are evil, crazy, stupid, or all of the above? Sure, people left in anger, but Smith mostly interacted with those who stayed. That completely changes the cost/benefit calculations.
Actually, he was frequently betrayed by those in his inner circle and was never insulated from those betrayals. As I've mentioned already, the Nuavoo Expositor is the paper that ultimately led to his death. It was run by former Mormons and opearated in Nauvoo. Hardly what I'd call being insulated from anyone who didn't like him when you have a vociferous anti-Mormon paper run by your former colleagues just down the street.
He was also separated from his followers for long periods of time (see Liberty Jail) and so the whole idea that he was in this insulated world of loyal sycophants finds no basis in the accepted historical record.
I take your "good grief" and return it in kind. People fail in their grandiose schemes all the time, and you generally discover that they're acting on their own best understanding of how to achieve them. To prove that an act is altruistic, you have to do more than prove that the actor failed to make a buck off it.
Your contention is that he was motivated by greed and lust. And yet he chose a course of action that repeatedly, consistently, and without fail led to the opposite. The facts don't add up.
Zero evidence? Besides Oliver Cowdery's accusation that Smith carried on an affair with Fanny Algers? Nah, Cowdery was a liar about everything except the reality of the plates.
Fine. I should have said "zero reliable evidence". No doubt you would fail to be swayed by the testimony of a Joseph Smith loyalist. And yet you expect others to be swayed by the testimony of a Joseph Smith detractor? That makes no sense.
Besides his wives getting pregnant while their other husbands were away on missions? No, God just inspired Smith to take to wife women who then went and cheated on both their husbands.
You made the overreaching claims, saying that his life was unmitigated suckage, which no sane person would have chosen. I merely pointed out a few inconvenient truths that undermined your claims. Many people would choose to be king for a day, rather than a peasant for a lifetime.
I don't think you've successfully undermined my point. Many people would choose king for a day over peasant for a lifetime. No sane person would choose king for a day over king for a week or amonth, however. And that's the choice you're asking people to believe Smith made.
I reserve judgment, since the only evidence you seem to offer is your unwavering faith in Smith's extraordinary talents.
This is nonsense. I don't believe Smith was that talented. But the only explanation for producing a work of the magnitude of the Book of Mormon are divine inspiration and talent. So, presuming he had no divine inspiration, he must have had immense talent. Why would someone with that level of talent choose a life of poverty when he could have lived much more comfortably?
You make it sound as though Smith had some sort of crystal ball (or a stone in a hat, perhaps) which allowed him to foresee all the consequences of his actions.
Good grief, man. This isn't pscyhohistory and he's not Hari Seldon. I'm talking about really, really basic stuff. Like "If they tried to kill you for saying you saw an angel and translating gold plates, maybe another work of translation might not increase your safety or prosperity." It doesn't take clairvoyance to see that, it takes basic intelligence.
You might be surprised to know it, but I believe that Smith believed in his own spiritual mission, which was more important to him than any wealth he ever might have accumulated.
Are you claiming that in the "he never had sex with anyone but Emma" sense, or the "he was sealed to every last woman before he had sex with them" sense? If the former, then your argument is with the historical record, not me.
I have no argument with the historical record. The historical record includes zero evidence that Joseph Smith actually consumated any of those marriages, and at least circumstantial evidence that he did not.
Now, how *was* Lucy Harris going to alter those pages?
I don't know a thing about forgery. I believe that minor changes would have been sufficient and that the workmanship need not have been extremely high quality. Having said that, I don't know precisely what methods may have been used to alter ink writings on 19th century parchment.
Seriously though, if you were at lunch with someone and they expressed a literal belief in Zeus, wouldn't you wonder if they were okay?
If they really meant Zeus as in an embodied God who lives atop Mt. Olympus and behaves as depicted in various Greek myths I would indeed find that strange.
I don't think the Greek gods are a fair counterpoint to Christian traditions, however, for the simple reason that (as far as I know) no one ever took the Greek gods particularly seriously. All of the Greek philosophers that I've read who espouse a belief in God of one form or another definitely reject the mythological stories of God.
Given that fact, I'm doubtful that any seriously thinking people believed in the Greek gods even during the hey day of ancient Greece.
I'm not a historian. My philosophy professors were unable to give me a really good answer to this question. That's just my perception.
I couldn't remember the time frame and I didn't want to make something up. Thanks for adding that. I remembered that it was a short time frame, but was unsure of the exact number.
It can lead to stupid and dangerous decisions. Suppose Mitt Romney as prez made foreign policy decisions based on his religious beliefs?
I don't believe that they're being Mormon led to them being wrong and naive. Do you think Catholics are immune? Or perhas that atheists are immune?
What I'm saying is that you should judge the people for their own mistakes. Not the religion. If there are flaws in Mormonism, find them. But simply saying "some people who were Mormon made some mistakes" has no bearing on Mormonism.
If you want to talk about Romney, attack him for who he is. Not for his religion.
Joseph Smith's life included times of deprivation, suffering, abandonment, heartache, and loss. He also had, from time to time, the sort of power and adulation that most men would never dream to hope for.
All of the grand glories you refer to happened in Nauvoo. Nauvoo was founded in 1839. The "Mansion House" was not constructed until 1842. Joseph Smith died in 1844. So he lived in pretty much unending misery from before the formation of the Church (say 1828) until at least 1842. 14 years. Then he had some comforts for two years until he was dragged away from his children once more and eventually shot to death.
And you think he did it for the money? Seriously, man, you're just not making sense. Even in Nauvoo he was surrounded by people who wanted to kill him, including many of his own. His life sucked. Pure and simple. He spentm months in jail for crimes he didn't commit, he lost numerous children, he was beaten, he was tarred and feathered, he was nearly killed multiple times, his people were chased out of state after state, he lived in constant fear of his life and for what? So he could live in a nice house for 2 years in a city virtually under siege before being shot to death? That's really your argument?
Fame, money, power, wall-to-wall pussy.
Well, aside from being rather jouvenile, history just doesn't back you up. He lived his life in abject poverty with an exceptional 2-year period of relative comfort. He was a very powerful man towards the end of his life with enemies who were far more powerful than he was. His fame, as you evidence yoursself, is largely infamy. And there's no evidence - not one scrap - of sexual promiscuity.
But you cannot say that Smith never benefited materially from the organization he founded. After all, how much of that would he have accomplished if he'd stuck to farming?
What I can say, without any doubt whatsoever, is that if Joseph Smith was an imposter and built this empire himself he could *EASILY* have done so without causing the ire of his neighbors. He could have lived in comfort and peace his entire days. Restoriationist churches were a dime a dozen during the Second Great Awakening. He could have had more money, more fame, more followers, and more safety and freedom (and more women) if he'd just started a nice, friendly new denomination like everyone else at the time did. Did he benefit, at all, from the religion he founded? Certainly. Are his actions and decisions commensurate with someone in it for money and sex? Not remotely.
I meant "theology" in a more technical sense. This is from an article by scholar James Faulconer called "Why a Mormon Won't Drink Coffee but Might Have a Coke: The Atheological Character of the Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
It is a matter of curiousity to many and an annoyance to some that it is sometimes difficult to get definitive answers from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to what seem like straighforward questions - question of the form "Why do you believe or do x?" Latter-day Saints subscribe to a few basic doctrines, mst of which they share with other Christians (such as that Jesus is divine) and some of which differentiate them, such as the teaching that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. They also accept general moral teachings, the kinds of things believed by both the religious and the non-religious. Apart from those, selcomd can one say without preface or explanation what Latter-day Saints believe.
I will argue that this apparently curious sitution is a result of the fact that, like many, probably most, other religious people (including Buddhists and Jews), Latter-day Saints are atheological. In other words, they are without an official or even semi-official philosophy that explains and gives rational support to their beliefs and teachings. To make this argument, I will argue that what we say about being LDS is an expression of what it means to be LDS, but being LDS is irreducible to a set of propositions. As I use the word "theology" here, it begins with belief and uses the methods of rational philosophy to give support to that beleif: dogmatic, systematic, or rataional theology. This is why Mormonism is at once extremely rigid and conformist (all Mormons have more or less identical positions on core issues or are not in good standing) and radically flexible and individualistic (the rationale for those beliefs and even the precise nature of those beliefs is left entirely up to the individual).
Slashdot Mirror
This explains why there are no arrogant people over the age of 30, yes?
Stack Overflow reputation is cumulative. This means that if two people are providing answers of the same quality and at the same rate over time, the folks who have been there longest will have higher reputations, and that the higher reputation will reflect only tenure. Not any kind of quality.
If you want to look at quality, you should be looking at a metric that is something like (total reputation / number of months active). Even this is imperfect of course, since if people take a hiatus or something that will present the appearance of worse quality using this metric.
I was going to say that this fatal flaw invalidated the conclusions because the correlation between reputation and age just reflected the older people being around longer. The problem with that is that Stack Overflow opened in 2008. That's not enough time to explain a linear trend that tracks from age 16 to nearly age 50, but the final conclusion "So, senior coders earn their higher reputation by providing more answers, not by having answers of (significantly) higher quality." should still be re-examined with tenure-controlled analysis to try and see whether older aged members have been members longer.
the question there is whether the US federal government has lawful authority under the Constitution to order people to buy things
Well, the local government here forces me to pay for fire service.
You and the OP are both being unnecessarily vague and inaccurate.
The question is whether the US federal government has the authority to tell one person to purchase something from another private entity.
The local government isn't forcing you to buy something. It's forcing you to pay taxes (which it can do) and then it's providing a service (which it also can do). Even though it looks similar, paying taxes + receiving a public benefit != purchasing a consumer good.
You don't need special glasses to see a 3d-movie in 2d. The 3d glasses work fine. They did for me anyway.
I've got various eye-problems related to a severe infection I had as an infant. I've had surgery twice to try and correct my lazy-eye. And I'm totally immune to all kinds of 3d (3d movies, magic eye, etc.). Last time I went to the optometrist she explained that during the years where my eyes were crossed I developed a pyschological "blind spot". Since the eyes weren't pointing the same direction, I could either see double or just shut off the signal from one eye at a time. My brain opted for the latter.
Since my eyes are straight now the problem is theoretically something I could train my brain to stop doing, but I've never had any luck with the eye-exercises they gave me.
I went to see Avatar in 2d. Then I went to see it in 3d. The only difference at all for me was that in the 3d version if I took off the 3d glasses the whole screen looked fuzzy. If I kept them on nothing was in 3d, but the polarization meant that at least I could see the 2d images clearly.
That is just wrong. In cultures where the notion of a supreme being has never been considered or is otherwise not a notion that enters their culture in the slightest, where then do these people fall?
Obviously if you've got no notion of theism you fall outside the spectrum of beliefs about God entirely. I coudl see why you'd want to call such folks "atheist", but unfortunately the term is already in use. You'd have to call them "nontheists" or something to avoid confusion. That would add a fourth option. There's no problem with that. The three options I provided are the three positions you can take on theism. For, against, neutral. Being unaware of theism obviously means you can't take a position on it, so it'd be off the chart.
Where's the problem here?
In any case, the rejection of an idea is not a religion any more than not liking football is a sport.
You can prove anything by analogy. Let's get back to some actual definitions.
Theism: Positive belief that there is a God.
Weak Atheism: Rejection of theism - makes no positive statement about God.
Strong Atheism: Not only a rejection of theism, but in addition makes the positive statement that God does not exist.
Now let's define religion: A system of belief that makes claims about the supernatural which can not be substantiated by science.
So according to that definition weak atheism is not a religion, but strong atheism is.
You're going about this all wrong. The negative claim (fairies don't exist) cannot exist without the positive claim (fairies do exist) being made first. You can't say that you don't believe in god unless someone first makes the claim that god does exist. The claim and burden of proof both fall on the "god exists" camp.
Your claim that you need to argue that something exists before you can argue that it doesn't exist is manufactured hogswash to try and shift the burden of proof onto the theist camp. If you have to try and set up conditions at the start of a debate where your opponent has to do more work than you do that's a pretty good indicator that your argument itself is pretty weak.
In actual logic there's no reason at all that you have to argue for something to exist before you can argue against it.
Person A: Here's a definitino for God. [Provides a definition.]
Person B: So do you believe God exists?
Person A: Nope. I just think it's an interesting concept.
Person B: Well, I think God doesn't exist. [Provides reasoning.]
You see how it was totally unnecessary to say God exists before arguing that He doesn't? All that is necessary is a definition so you have a concept to argue about.
The claim is that god exists, not that he doesn't exist. Person A says to Person B, I believe god exists. Here's why. Person B says, your evidence is not sufficient enough to support your claim. Person B is not making a claim. He is rejecting the claim made by Person A based on lack of evidence.
You are either deliberately employing sleight of hand to try and build your case, or you simply haven't grasped the distinction between strong (positive) and weak (negative) atheism. Here are the definitions again:
Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism. Historically, the terms positive and negative atheism have been used for this distinction, where "positive" atheism refers to the specific belief that gods do not exist, and "negative" atheism refers merely to an absence of belief in gods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
So, if Person B understood logic and was honest, this is how the conversation would play out.
Person A: I believe in God. [Presents reasoning.]
Person B: I find your reasoning unconvincing, so I fail to accept your conclusion. I do not believe in God. (WEAK ATHEISM)
Person A: So you believe God doesn't exist? (STRONG ATHEISM)
Person B: Not necessarily. If I wanted to make a positive claim that God doesn't exist (STRONG ATHEISM) I'd have to build an argument to do so. I don't feel like doing that. So I'm just going to observe that your reasoning is weak, fail to accept your conclusion, and be content with disbelief regarding God (WEAK ATHEISM) rather than belief that He does not exist (STRONG ATHEISM).
You might also notice that I'm saying "fail to accept" rather than "reject". This is also basic logic. If an argument is invalid (e.g. the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises) or unsound (e.g. some of the premises are not true) than you can reject the argument. You can not, however, reject the conclusion. You can simply say that the argument didn't prove the conclusion. The conclusion may or may not be true by some other reasoning.
For example:
1. The American flag is red, white and blue.
2. All flags with the color red in them are constitutional republics.
C. America is a constitutional republic.
Premise 2 is obviously false so the argument is unsound. But if you were to conclude that because the argument is unsound the conclusion must be false you'd be making your own logical error. So if someone presents an argument from God and you observe that the argument doesn't work you can't automatically assume the conclusion is false (STRONG ATHE
Therefore anyone who "only believes what is proven" believes ...
nothing at all.
I think that's a good point, but you're only rejecting epistemological certainty. As long as you're willing to live without certainty, you don't necessarily have to accept God or anything else without proof. This makes room for atheism as a rational belief system, but also reduces all of science to faith (where "faith" is defined as "believe in something based on good reason, but without certainty")
The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.
With you so far.
You can't shift the burden of proof to the negative argument, because the negative cannot be proven.
That's a total non sequitor. Just because you can't prove the non-existence of faeries doesn't mean you get to assume they don't exist until someone does. There's no logic there at all.
Go back to your first statement and stick to it. The one making the claim has the burden of the proof. Any claim.
If your claim is "God exists" or "Faeries exist" you have a burden of proof. If your claim is "God doesn't exist" or "Faeries don't exist" you're still making a claim and you still have the burden of proof.
The fact that it's harder to proof a negative (hard, not impossible) doesn't result in some kind of Celestial Logic Fairy compensating by easing the burden of proof.
In the case of god, what we have is a claim being made by believers that their god exists. They have to prove their case. Atheist or agnostics don't have to disprove it.
Agnostics don't. Some atheists do. If you take the weak atheist position ("I don't believe in God") you have nothing to prove because you're not making a claim. If you take the strong atheist position ("I believe God does not exist") than you've made a claim and (see your original point) you get the burden of proof that comes with that claim.
If the probability seems low enough, you can safely say that the claim is most likely not true given the current evidence.
I agree with you here too, but you're contradicting your earlier statements. If an event has an extremely low probability that *is* reason to believe it is false from basic probability theory.
Define event G to be "God exists". If you ascertain that P(G) = .01 (just for kicks and giggles) than it's a matter of simple algebra to find P(~G) = .99 and simple logic to deduce that ~G corresponds to "God doesn't exist".
So yeah, if you find that the chance of God existing is very low you've got ample reason to assert the positive claim that He doesn't exist, but you're doing so by addressing your burden of proof, not by default.
Any religion which rejects Jesus as God is automatically incompatible with Christianity.
If you'd said that in the first place I wouldn't have argued the point. That's just true from definition. But you brought up the Trinity. That's a different matter entirely, because the location of the Trinity within Christian orthodoxy is a controversial topic.
Whether or not you are aware of it, this identical argument (that any one who rejects the Trinity isn't really worshiping the same God as the true Christians) is a lynch-pin in the Baptists explaining why Mormons are an evil devil cult rather than a different branch of Christianity.
The burden of proof is on the believer.
Burden of proof swing both ways. The burden of proof "I believe fairies exist!" is the same as the burden of proof "I believe fairies don't exist!" The default position should be: "I have no belief about faeiries one way or the other."
That is scientific skepticism.
Atheists just think there is not enough evidence to support the proposition, and the probability of there being such a being is very low.
Some atheists have that mentality, but the loud ones are actually quite evangelical in their proactive claims of God's non-existence.
I'm not attacking atheism or atheists, mind you. I've got no beef with either one in general. I'm just annoyed with the trendy neo-orthodoxy of atheism that treats acceptance of the proposition "It is a fact that God does not exist" as though it were the starting point.
It's not.
Israel offered to give Gaza to Egypt.
Egypt didn't want it.
Not that I blame them, of course.
The Palestinians are just pawns for the Arabs, who are only posturing as anti-Israel to quell their own internal radicals. Well, now they are pawns for the Persians, which just makes the whole thing more complex.
Sure, Muslims and Jews historically don't get along, but neither do Arabs and Persians. So now it's a three-way battle.
Muslims worship a God which is not triune. Therefore, the Muslim God cannot be the Christian God.
From your response I can tell you are a Southern Baptist who has been exposed to "The Mormon Question" or know someone who has. It saddens me to see you so naively misled. Using the doctrine of the Trinity as a bright-line distinction between Mormons and Christians (or Muslims and Christians in this case) might be the kind of comforting safety blanked that lets you rest easy, but sadly it has no basis in fact.
The fact is that there's no such thing as the Trinity in the Bible.
"The formal doctrine of the trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament." - Harper's Bible Dictionary (Protestant Source)
"The formulation of 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century... Among Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - New Catholic Encyclopedia (Catholic Source)
The Bible's teaching on God's nature is ambiguous. Sure, Christ says he's "one with the Father", but then he also prays that his disciples will be one in the same sense of the word, which seriously jeopardizes subsequent metaphysical gymnastics required to invent the "one in three, three in one" formulation. At best the Bible is compatible with the Trinity, but it most certainly doesn't require it or preach it.
Oops.
First you have to realize that there legitimately are three positions to take with respect to God:
1. Affirm existence
2. Deny existence
3. Fail to affirm/deny existence
Atheism is often used to refer to both 2 and 3, but properly speaking it should be #2. Furthermore, type #3 atheism never got anyone killed. Type #2 atheism contains the pop culture, Richard Dawkins, goose-stepping, fundamentalist variety that does nobody any good. It also includes some decent folk, but it's where you find the crazies.
It's also worth pointing out that atheism of the #2 variety is essentially a religion. It has a central doctrine about God and espouses it without proof. That works for me.
Would you be happier with a 1:1 death toll? can't an army be efficient?
Yeah, the logic is just bizarre. Whoever wins = bad guy.
I can see how you would believe that, and I don't discount the notion completely. But looking as Smith's career, it's clear that he always thought big.
I should specify my intentions: I don't think that I can prove that Smith acted out of altruism. I think the best I can hope to do is offer an alternative reading that also fits the facts. I understood your original argument to be "the man got money and sex, so obviously that was his motive". By showing that he didn't get money and may or may not have gotten sex I think I can convincingly argue that your original position that it's an open-shut case of lust and greed is false. But I can't actually argue that my competing hypothesis is an obvious and unassailable replacement.
I understand that.
It seems that your argument has gained some subtlety as we've progressed (although I'm sure it's only your tone/style that's changed and that you've had the more sophisticated argument the whole time). And I don't really have a problem with this more sublte version. I certainly don't think Smith's reputation is, from an unbiased perspective, beyond reproach. Quite the opposite. There is much in it that looks shady.
So as the questions become more complex my motivation for arguing with you decrease. I think reasonable people can draw disparate conclusions about Smith. I also have to admit that you've clearly done more research than I have on this topic. Mormon apologetics breaks down into roughly 3 categories:
1. early Christianity
2. Book of Mormon/Bible studies (textual analysis of the Book of Mormon itself)
3. early Mormon history
I'm weakest on #3, and I'm not a professional in any of the three categories. I find the first 2 much more interesting. And much less troubling. (I can be honest that I find much in the history of my Church deeply disconcerting.)
I'm not saying that Smith was unaware of his detractors, or even that he was physically separated from them all the time. I'm talking more about the sort of separation that separates you and I. I think he put his enemies into a tiny box marked "people I don't have to respect or listen to at all", and listened primarily to those who told him he was The Lord's Prophet.
I see. Instead of talking about the impact on his happiness you're talking about the impact on his self-perception. I can't really argue with that.
Had you even skimmed those links,
I did read them. I would not disrespect you by ignoring your evidence. It was disconcerting enough that at this point it goes beyond an internet conversation for me and into real-world research. I would like to know actual sources so I can read the information myself.
What you wrote was extremely convincing. As I said earlier, this is not my strong point and from the evidence provided you've clearly won this round. What's more important than winning or losing, however, is that your evidence is strong and therefore has a better claim on reflecting the reality of what happened.
I've heard of "Sacred Loneliness", but I haven't read it yet. I will certainly take the time to do more research into this arena. So, even though it's not comfortable to research this stuff, I have to say thanks for being as well-informed as you have been.
Another thing that I think undermines your argument: why did Smith marry so many, and usually so young?
FWIW, I didn't find this particularly convincing. But honestly, I don't know a ton about the topic. Here's the only extensive article I've read: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Zina_and_Her_Men.html
Anyway, just out of curiosity, what have you read from Mormon scholars responding to the accusations that polygamy was about sex? What have you read from the Mormon perspective about why polygamy was practiced? You seem very well-read on the anti side, I'm just curios what you've read from the Mormon side.
Again, you seem to be claiming that a non-inspired Joseph Smith would have had both the foresight to foresee the consequences of his actions and the temperament needed to avoid the unpleasant courses.
Any rational human being could foresee the consequences of his actions. Maybe not the initial reaction to announcing he had plates and had seen an angel, but once he made those claims and got his feed back (universal derision and the first attempts on his life) it was no longer a guessing game as to what the results from continuing on this course would be.
And I'm making no claims about his tempermant. I'm simply saying that being motivated by greed (for money or power) or lust does not make sense in light of the fact that he could easily have had more of both and avoided some or all of the persecutions in his life.
It's not a question of king for day or peasent for a year, it's a qusetion of king for a few years or king for a day. It's irrational to say his motivation was that he wanted to be a king, and that therefore he chose king for a day over king for a few years.
I think you're overestimating both the economic opportunities available to 19th century writers and the literary merits of the Book of Mormon.
Neither. I'm not saying he could have gotten rich off of the proceeds of the book. I'm saying he could have founded a religion with much less hassle by avoiding the whole angel story. There were tons of restorationist congregations staring in the early 19th century, and some got rather large. Given his talents (his people skills, as you put it) he could easily have creatd one of those and lived in comfort and respectability and wealth and power all his days.
That's one of the reasons why your "most people hated him" argument falls flat for me. Smith was kind of like George Bush today, spending most of his time surrounded by loyalists and admirers. So what if most of the world hates you, so long as the people nearest you are telling you that you're wonderful and your enemies are evil, crazy, stupid, or all of the above? Sure, people left in anger, but Smith mostly interacted with those who stayed. That completely changes the cost/benefit calculations.
Actually, he was frequently betrayed by those in his inner circle and was never insulated from those betrayals. As I've mentioned already, the Nuavoo Expositor is the paper that ultimately led to his death. It was run by former Mormons and opearated in Nauvoo. Hardly what I'd call being insulated from anyone who didn't like him when you have a vociferous anti-Mormon paper run by your former colleagues just down the street.
He was also separated from his followers for long periods of time (see Liberty Jail) and so the whole idea that he was in this insulated world of loyal sycophants finds no basis in the accepted historical record.
I take your "good grief" and return it in kind. People fail in their grandiose schemes all the time, and you generally discover that they're acting on their own best understanding of how to achieve them. To prove that an act is altruistic, you have to do more than prove that the actor failed to make a buck off it.
Your contention is that he was motivated by greed and lust. And yet he chose a course of action that repeatedly, consistently, and without fail led to the opposite. The facts don't add up.
Zero evidence? Besides Oliver Cowdery's accusation that Smith carried on an affair with Fanny Algers? Nah, Cowdery was a liar about everything except the reality of the plates.
Fine. I should have said "zero reliable evidence". No doubt you would fail to be swayed by the testimony of a Joseph Smith loyalist. And yet you expect others to be swayed by the testimony of a Joseph Smith detractor? That makes no sense.
Besides his wives getting pregnant while their other husbands were away on missions? No, God just inspired Smith to take to wife women who then went and cheated on both their husbands.
Th
I'm going to nit-pick here a bit. "infallible" means incapable of making mistakes.
Sheesh. I'm going to die the death of a thousand nit picks over here!
You made the overreaching claims, saying that his life was unmitigated suckage, which no sane person would have chosen. I merely pointed out a few inconvenient truths that undermined your claims. Many people would choose to be king for a day, rather than a peasant for a lifetime.
I don't think you've successfully undermined my point. Many people would choose king for a day over peasant for a lifetime. No sane person would choose king for a day over king for a week or amonth, however. And that's the choice you're asking people to believe Smith made.
I reserve judgment, since the only evidence you seem to offer is your unwavering faith in Smith's extraordinary talents.
This is nonsense. I don't believe Smith was that talented. But the only explanation for producing a work of the magnitude of the Book of Mormon are divine inspiration and talent. So, presuming he had no divine inspiration, he must have had immense talent. Why would someone with that level of talent choose a life of poverty when he could have lived much more comfortably?
You make it sound as though Smith had some sort of crystal ball (or a stone in a hat, perhaps) which allowed him to foresee all the consequences of his actions.
Good grief, man. This isn't pscyhohistory and he's not Hari Seldon. I'm talking about really, really basic stuff. Like "If they tried to kill you for saying you saw an angel and translating gold plates, maybe another work of translation might not increase your safety or prosperity." It doesn't take clairvoyance to see that, it takes basic intelligence.
You might be surprised to know it, but I believe that Smith believed in his own spiritual mission, which was more important to him than any wealth he ever might have accumulated.
So you're in the Fawn Brodie school of history. You might consider reading this: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=47
Are you claiming that in the "he never had sex with anyone but Emma" sense, or the "he was sealed to every last woman before he had sex with them" sense? If the former, then your argument is with the historical record, not me.
I have no argument with the historical record. The historical record includes zero evidence that Joseph Smith actually consumated any of those marriages, and at least circumstantial evidence that he did not.
Now, how *was* Lucy Harris going to alter those pages?
I don't know a thing about forgery. I believe that minor changes would have been sufficient and that the workmanship need not have been extremely high quality. Having said that, I don't know precisely what methods may have been used to alter ink writings on 19th century parchment.
Seriously though, if you were at lunch with someone and they expressed a literal belief in Zeus, wouldn't you wonder if they were okay?
If they really meant Zeus as in an embodied God who lives atop Mt. Olympus and behaves as depicted in various Greek myths I would indeed find that strange.
I don't think the Greek gods are a fair counterpoint to Christian traditions, however, for the simple reason that (as far as I know) no one ever took the Greek gods particularly seriously. All of the Greek philosophers that I've read who espouse a belief in God of one form or another definitely reject the mythological stories of God.
Given that fact, I'm doubtful that any seriously thinking people believed in the Greek gods even during the hey day of ancient Greece.
I'm not a historian. My philosophy professors were unable to give me a really good answer to this question. That's just my perception.
Nope, you caught me in another slip-up. Boggs in Missouri is the one I was referencing.
That's 2 now (mistakes). I will certainly try to be more careful in the future.
No, I'm not insulted at all. I was typing quickly and made that slip up. I think someone else caught it before you did, actually.
I couldn't remember the time frame and I didn't want to make something up. Thanks for adding that. I remembered that it was a short time frame, but was unsure of the exact number.
It can lead to stupid and dangerous decisions. Suppose Mitt Romney as prez made foreign policy decisions based on his religious beliefs?
I don't believe that they're being Mormon led to them being wrong and naive. Do you think Catholics are immune? Or perhas that atheists are immune?
What I'm saying is that you should judge the people for their own mistakes. Not the religion. If there are flaws in Mormonism, find them. But simply saying "some people who were Mormon made some mistakes" has no bearing on Mormonism.
If you want to talk about Romney, attack him for who he is. Not for his religion.
Joseph Smith's life included times of deprivation, suffering, abandonment, heartache, and loss. He also had, from time to time, the sort of power and adulation that most men would never dream to hope for.
All of the grand glories you refer to happened in Nauvoo. Nauvoo was founded in 1839. The "Mansion House" was not constructed until 1842. Joseph Smith died in 1844. So he lived in pretty much unending misery from before the formation of the Church (say 1828) until at least 1842. 14 years. Then he had some comforts for two years until he was dragged away from his children once more and eventually shot to death.
And you think he did it for the money? Seriously, man, you're just not making sense. Even in Nauvoo he was surrounded by people who wanted to kill him, including many of his own. His life sucked. Pure and simple. He spentm months in jail for crimes he didn't commit, he lost numerous children, he was beaten, he was tarred and feathered, he was nearly killed multiple times, his people were chased out of state after state, he lived in constant fear of his life and for what? So he could live in a nice house for 2 years in a city virtually under siege before being shot to death? That's really your argument?
Fame, money, power, wall-to-wall pussy.
Well, aside from being rather jouvenile, history just doesn't back you up. He lived his life in abject poverty with an exceptional 2-year period of relative comfort. He was a very powerful man towards the end of his life with enemies who were far more powerful than he was. His fame, as you evidence yoursself, is largely infamy. And there's no evidence - not one scrap - of sexual promiscuity.
But you cannot say that Smith never benefited materially from the organization he founded. After all, how much of that would he have accomplished if he'd stuck to farming?
What I can say, without any doubt whatsoever, is that if Joseph Smith was an imposter and built this empire himself he could *EASILY* have done so without causing the ire of his neighbors. He could have lived in comfort and peace his entire days. Restoriationist churches were a dime a dozen during the Second Great Awakening. He could have had more money, more fame, more followers, and more safety and freedom (and more women) if he'd just started a nice, friendly new denomination like everyone else at the time did. Did he benefit, at all, from the religion he founded? Certainly. Are his actions and decisions commensurate with someone in it for money and sex? Not remotely.
I will argue that this apparently curious sitution is a result of the fact that, like many, probably most, other religious people (including Buddhists and Jews), Latter-day Saints are atheological. In other words, they are without an official or even semi-official philosophy that explains and gives rational support to their beliefs and teachings. To make this argument, I will argue that what we say about being LDS is an expression of what it means to be LDS, but being LDS is irreducible to a set of propositions. As I use the word "theology" here, it begins with belief and uses the methods of rational philosophy to give support to that beleif: dogmatic, systematic, or rataional theology. This is why Mormonism is at once extremely rigid and conformist (all Mormons have more or less identical positions on core issues or are not in good standing) and radically flexible and individualistic (the rationale for those beliefs and even the precise nature of those beliefs is left entirely up to the individual).