inafoxhole (inafoxhole) wrote,

The Book of Mormon (Part 12) & other stuff

I am down to Disc #20 of 21 of the Book of Mormon. It took how many discs? 17? to get to Jesus and now he's done and the Nephites have just been slaughtered. Fun.

I gotta say, this whole bit with Jesus, it's pure plagarism. I mean, everything he does it pulled almost directly from the New Testament. There isn't a thing original here. People go bad, they die. All the metaphors are the same. And I continue to be convinced that if a bunch of lunatics hadn't been so gullible in the 19th century, this whole monstrosity would have vanished completely by now, because there isn't a single redeeming literary value to it at all. It's completely fabricated. There isn't an ounce of truth to it. Even the Bible can pretend to an ounce here or there. Just plain, Yikes!

Oh, word of advice to people arguing with me about god... you don't get to pretend that you can read his mind, and then tell me I can't argue hypotheticals about what god might or might not think. That's just stupid. You pretend to be a Christian, I've got references to refer to.

Speaking of which, someone was arguing with me about the definition of atheism. Apparently, some dictionaries, like Merriam-Websters online insists that atheists say there is no god, while dictionaries like the OED, say that atheists either deny the existence of god, or don't believe in one. There was some debate about what exactly the difference in the two definitions was. I posted this response:

The problem is this:

When one "does not believe in god" one is not making an affirmative statement. When one says "there is no god" one is making an affirmative statement, one that is impossible to prove. Atheists disbelieve in god because they don't believe there is enough evidence. They await said evidence. On the other hand, when one says "there is no god", theists try to run around saying that atheism is a religion just like there are because, since they can't really PROVE there is no god, they are taking that statement on "faith".

The difference is one of probabilities. When one "doesn't believe in god", an atheist is saying "the chances that god exists are so small as to be virtually zero." When one says "there is no god" one is saying that "the probability of god is exactly zero." Now, as a mathematician, I can tell you, there is a WORLD of difference between those two statements.

Is it a matter of semantics? Perhaps in colloquial usage. It is not, however, a trivial difference when making claims about belief and/or the existence of god. One statement is logically defensible. One statement is not. Thus, the insistence on the correctly worded definition. Logical arguments depend very much on precision in language.

And you know where this response led? I'm angry because of an old nun when I was a kid.

Gotta love arguing with believers. If not, you'll go insane.

I started reading Breaking the Spell today! Will let you know.
Tags: book of mormon, breaking the spell, debates, definition, dennett

  • update on an alt med story

    A while ago, I posted about alternative medicine. That posted was flooded with comments to the point that I had to restrict the ability of anonymous…

  • Pope is in fantasy land yet again

    Pope preaches against accepting reality. Condoms are not the answer to the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa, Pope Benedict said Tuesday while on his…

  • people

    My brother probably has a baby on the way. They think his wife is pregnant. I was talking to my mom today and she was saying that she is holding off…

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded