I'm a teen growing up in Utah and was raised as a Mormon. About a year ago realized I realized I'd lost any small amount of faith that I'd thought I had. My family and some friends know that I'm an atheist, and I'd like to have good arguments against the mormon church specificaly if it ever comes up. I've heard many arguments already but was wondering if anyone had more they'd like to contribute,
Thanks for the help,
Jace
Destroy Mormon Debate
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
Most of what I know about Mormonism I got from the book "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer. It's a nonfiction account of the murder of a young woman and her newborn. The defendants claimed that they were acting on orders from God.
In the book, Krakauer details the history of the Mormon church and what he had to say shocked me. I can't verify the accuracy of his work, but if it is true it will provide you with plenty of ammo for the arguments you are looking for.
In the book, Krakauer details the history of the Mormon church and what he had to say shocked me. I can't verify the accuracy of his work, but if it is true it will provide you with plenty of ammo for the arguments you are looking for.
-
jamesmorlock
- Scholar
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 4:26 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #4
If you're looking to convince people, you can't possibly hope to win. Here are the reasons why:
Whoever you argue with will immediately shut down when you present your arguments. Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling and many believers take this feeling as 'warnings' from God to ignore whatever is causing it.
It is not in their best interest to even begin to consider what you have to say. They would lose too much if they were to be convinced - friends, family, social groups, social support systems, 'answers to life's big questions', the hope of heaven... the list goes on.
They have been trained since birth to be a 'one way trapdoor'... dogmatically preach and proselytize without taking anything in that the other side presents. To them, you're just a 'poor lost soul' who's been influenced by the 'big bad world', and cannot possibly gain any wisdom or new valuable knowledge from you.
Lastly, the church has not taught them the proper tools of logic. In fact, many churches openly condemn the use of logic in favor of emotion and blind faith. They are simply not equipped to consider your arguments in a logical manner, because they literally cannot think that way. To them, 'logic' is just a flimsy word you apply to any kind of contrived reasoning, erroneous or not.
Sorry to disappoint. I would save your arguments for those few who do not show signs of these things - the discussion will be much more satisfying and enlightening, for you and them.
Whoever you argue with will immediately shut down when you present your arguments. Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling and many believers take this feeling as 'warnings' from God to ignore whatever is causing it.
It is not in their best interest to even begin to consider what you have to say. They would lose too much if they were to be convinced - friends, family, social groups, social support systems, 'answers to life's big questions', the hope of heaven... the list goes on.
They have been trained since birth to be a 'one way trapdoor'... dogmatically preach and proselytize without taking anything in that the other side presents. To them, you're just a 'poor lost soul' who's been influenced by the 'big bad world', and cannot possibly gain any wisdom or new valuable knowledge from you.
Lastly, the church has not taught them the proper tools of logic. In fact, many churches openly condemn the use of logic in favor of emotion and blind faith. They are simply not equipped to consider your arguments in a logical manner, because they literally cannot think that way. To them, 'logic' is just a flimsy word you apply to any kind of contrived reasoning, erroneous or not.
Sorry to disappoint. I would save your arguments for those few who do not show signs of these things - the discussion will be much more satisfying and enlightening, for you and them.
"I can call spirits from the vastie Deepe."
"Why so can I, or so can any man: But will they come, when you doe call for them?"
--Henry IV
"You’re about as much use as a condom machine in the Vatican."
--Rimmer, Red Dwarf
"Bender is great."
--Bender
"Why so can I, or so can any man: But will they come, when you doe call for them?"
--Henry IV
"You’re about as much use as a condom machine in the Vatican."
--Rimmer, Red Dwarf
"Bender is great."
--Bender
Post #5
^Altho many of the theists I know are like that, I think I could at least get them to start thinking about their religion if I present the right arguments. I know many of my peers are starting to think and I feel obligated to nudge them to what I consider, the right direction.
-
Zzyzx
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Post #6
.
No argument or information will "fit all". It is difficult to learn what "triggers" might work with specific people.
I find it most effective to use the "shotgun" approach and address comments (or more importantly, QUESTIONS) to a large number of readers rather than individuals. The thread "Did 'miracles' actually happen?"I posted this morning is an example. There is a list of 120 claimed "miracles" from the bible. Even a staunch believer reading down the list might pick out a few as being "maybe not quite true -- but all the rest of them are true".
That can be the beginning of the person THINKING about what they have been told to believe. Once thinking (particularly critical or analytical thinking) becomes involved, the "true for sure" list shrinks and doubt grows.
Jace,jace wrote:^Altho many of the theists I know are like that, I think I could at least get them to start thinking about their religion if I present the right arguments. I know many of my peers are starting to think and I feel obligated to nudge them to what I consider, the right direction.
No argument or information will "fit all". It is difficult to learn what "triggers" might work with specific people.
I find it most effective to use the "shotgun" approach and address comments (or more importantly, QUESTIONS) to a large number of readers rather than individuals. The thread "Did 'miracles' actually happen?"I posted this morning is an example. There is a list of 120 claimed "miracles" from the bible. Even a staunch believer reading down the list might pick out a few as being "maybe not quite true -- but all the rest of them are true".
That can be the beginning of the person THINKING about what they have been told to believe. Once thinking (particularly critical or analytical thinking) becomes involved, the "true for sure" list shrinks and doubt grows.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #7
As ex mormons say, arguing with a mormon is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
There are several HUGE problems with LDS beliefs. One is that they keep changing to suit the times and arguments they can't get around, e.g.:
Racism
That the native Americans do not have Hebrew DNA
No artifacts found that the BoM says should exist
The FACT (even LDS scholars agree) that the Book of Abraham as 'translated' by Joseph Smith bears NO relationship to the text he 'translated' it from.
[Mormon apologists now say that when Smith wrote 'translated' he really meant 'inspired by'
There are several HUGE problems with LDS beliefs. One is that they keep changing to suit the times and arguments they can't get around, e.g.:
Racism
That the native Americans do not have Hebrew DNA
No artifacts found that the BoM says should exist
The FACT (even LDS scholars agree) that the Book of Abraham as 'translated' by Joseph Smith bears NO relationship to the text he 'translated' it from.
[Mormon apologists now say that when Smith wrote 'translated' he really meant 'inspired by'
Post #9
I don't think one has to be quite as pessimistic as jamesmorlock but he does have a point.
I think every religious focused argument counts against Mormons. Mormons as being quite new and quite ridiculous should be easy to argument against but I guess they have heard all the stuff about their founder and who not before.
I honestly could understand why anybody takes that religion serious but what shalls. I would come at them with all the standard religion is self delusion argument. Mormonism is quite weird I suppose Mormons should be somewhat aware of that. I would argue after the logical inconsistencies and try to compare some of the believes to alternative believes that one could think up using the same weirdo logic.
Not necessarily try to argue for atheism but act as if you are arguing for the Qu'ran. Muslims have lots of webpages with all kind of wonky arguments. Mormons should feel right at home and what many religious like the least is if you point out in their own rhetoric how another religion is more reasonable than theirs.
IMO that is why the FSM religion has more educational value than trying to argue about epistemology. Show what nonsense one should believe in given the same logic. Especially those with weak theological education are easily argued against that way. The theologically more educated one can try to argue with actual philosophical arguments.
I think every religious focused argument counts against Mormons. Mormons as being quite new and quite ridiculous should be easy to argument against but I guess they have heard all the stuff about their founder and who not before.
I honestly could understand why anybody takes that religion serious but what shalls. I would come at them with all the standard religion is self delusion argument. Mormonism is quite weird I suppose Mormons should be somewhat aware of that. I would argue after the logical inconsistencies and try to compare some of the believes to alternative believes that one could think up using the same weirdo logic.
Not necessarily try to argue for atheism but act as if you are arguing for the Qu'ran. Muslims have lots of webpages with all kind of wonky arguments. Mormons should feel right at home and what many religious like the least is if you point out in their own rhetoric how another religion is more reasonable than theirs.
IMO that is why the FSM religion has more educational value than trying to argue about epistemology. Show what nonsense one should believe in given the same logic. Especially those with weak theological education are easily argued against that way. The theologically more educated one can try to argue with actual philosophical arguments.
Wie? ist der Mensch nur ein Fehlgriff Gottes? Oder Gott nur ein Fehlgriff des Menschen?
How is it? Is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's blunders?
- Friedrich Nietzsche
How is it? Is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's blunders?
- Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #10
Mormons are the opposite of 'matter and energy.' They can only be destroyed, they cannot be changed or transformed. 
If they can actually repeat all their doctrines and beliefs while keeping a straight face, they are beyond outside influence.
Joseph Smith's creation of the Book of Abraham is one of his easier frauds to expose, tho' you will have to do your homework.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham is a good place to start:
Egyptologist Dr. James H. Breasted of the University of Chicago noted:
"... these three facsimiles of Egyptian documents in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ depict the most common objects in the Mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith’s interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization."[26]
Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie of London University wrote:
"It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations"[27]
Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology,
“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.... Smith has turned the goddess [Isis in Facsimile No. 3] into a king and Osiris into Abraham.�[28]
The funniest part is the LDS contortions to get around the facts.
Essentially what happened is that unlike the Book of Mormon (the golden plates having mysteriously disappeared) Joseph Smith made the mistake of claiming the BoA was actually translated from Egyptian AND he did not destroy the original. Smith had a high opinion of his genius and when HE couldn't translate the original papyri, he figured no one could. When some of the original was found, his fraud was uncovered. LDS apologists now say Smith meant 'inspired by' when he said 'translated' AND that, 'well... we don't have ALL the original documents to compare.
If they can actually repeat all their doctrines and beliefs while keeping a straight face, they are beyond outside influence.Joseph Smith's creation of the Book of Abraham is one of his easier frauds to expose, tho' you will have to do your homework.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham is a good place to start:
Egyptologist Dr. James H. Breasted of the University of Chicago noted:
"... these three facsimiles of Egyptian documents in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ depict the most common objects in the Mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith’s interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization."[26]
Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie of London University wrote:
"It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations"[27]
Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology,
“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.... Smith has turned the goddess [Isis in Facsimile No. 3] into a king and Osiris into Abraham.�[28]
The funniest part is the LDS contortions to get around the facts.
Essentially what happened is that unlike the Book of Mormon (the golden plates having mysteriously disappeared) Joseph Smith made the mistake of claiming the BoA was actually translated from Egyptian AND he did not destroy the original. Smith had a high opinion of his genius and when HE couldn't translate the original papyri, he figured no one could. When some of the original was found, his fraud was uncovered. LDS apologists now say Smith meant 'inspired by' when he said 'translated' AND that, 'well... we don't have ALL the original documents to compare.
