Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
No, none of that’s true. First of all, his first name was Brigham, not Bringham. B. H. Roberts died as faithful as ever. Knowledge of his manuscript had been made public well before his death. What it was was a tract that would critically examine the Book of Mormon to anticipate any arguments that would come up and provide responses for them. In order to anticipate the arguments, Roberts formulated a number of criticisms of the Book of Mormon to which he then responded. He maintained all the way up to his death that none of the arguments he formulated concerned him in the least regarding his testimony. He was actually working on another book at the same time, which he considered his masterpiece. It was only published 17 years ago. See B. H. Roberts, The Truth, the Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology (ed., John W. Welch; Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Studies, 1994). The following publications also document B. H. Robert’s faithfulness: Davis Bitton, “B. H. Roberts and Book of Mormon Scholarship,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/2 (1999): 60–69; Truman G. Madsen, “B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon,” Brigham Young University Studies 19:4 (Summer 1979): 427–445; Madsen, “B. H. Roberts after Fifty Years: Still Witnessing for the Book of Mormon,” Ensign (December 1983): 11; Daniel C. Peterson, “Yet More Abuse of B. H. Roberts (Review of The Disappointment of B. H. Roberts: Five Questions That Forced a Mormon General Authority to Abandon the Book of Mormon),” FARMS Review of Books 9/1 (1997): 69–86; John W. Welch, “B. H. Roberts: Seeker After Truth,” Ensign (March 1986): 56.
And from the information I provided, your answer is disingenuous, misleading, slanted, biased and not totally true. I noticed you didn’t respond.
What comment of mine are you trying to address? If it’s the above, I didn’t see anything from you that addressed my comments. If it’s the fact that you simply linked to a Wikipedia article indiscriminately, yes, it has been discussed. Please pay better attention.
But I’m asking you logically, they “lack belief” in all the above, which is the pop definition of atheism, so why aren’t they Aevolutionest, because it makes no since, so why is Atheist a special case?
I didn’t know that evolutionist was even a word. However, if evolutionist means, One who believes in the theory of evolution, than I suppose Aevolutionist would be a suitable term for one who is without a belief in that theory, whether it’s because they have never been introduced to the idea or whether they just flat out deny it. Good luck getting that term popularized though.
Come now, the term was just for the sake of argument. So, then, to support the claim that babies are atheists, and it not be a special case, you are willing to make them Aeverythingest?
But I’m asking you logically, they “lack belief” in all the above, which is the pop definition of atheism, so why aren’t they Aevolutionest, because it makes no since, so why is Atheist a special case?
I didn’t know that evolutionist was even a word. However, if evolutionist means, One who believes in the theory of evolution, than I suppose Aevolutionist would be a suitable term for one who is without a belief in that theory, whether it’s because they have never been introduced to the idea or whether they just flat out deny it. Good luck getting that term popularized though.
Come now, the term was just for the sake of argument. So, then, to support the claim that babies are atheists, and it not be a special case, you are willing to make them Aeverythingest?
Yes, but it turns out evolutionist is an actual term, just not a popular one.
Reductio ad absurdum…? I would say that newborn babies cannot believe in things or ideas that they have never been introduced to. People will obviously not assign labels to everything that you do or don’t believe in, no one is going to call you a “Spherical Earthist” even though it would probably be accurate, so it’s really not surprising that people don’t call babies “Apolitical” (Or plenty of other things) even though it would be accurate.
But this really isn’t about babies or what they believe. It’s about what you claim the definition of atheism is, and what I claim it is, and we already know that we don’t agree there.
But I’m asking you logically, they “lack belief” in all the above, which is the pop definition of atheism, so why aren’t they Aevolutionest, because it makes no since, so why is Atheist a special case?
I didn’t know that evolutionist was even a word. However, if evolutionist means, One who believes in the theory of evolution, than I suppose Aevolutionist would be a suitable term for one who is without a belief in that theory, whether it’s because they have never been introduced to the idea or whether they just flat out deny it. Good luck getting that term popularized though.
Evolutionist is a common word. From the OED:
evolutionist, n. and adj.
A. n.
1. A performer of military or gymnastic evolutions (EVOLUTION n. 1a and 2a); an acrobat. Obs.
2. A person who holds a theory or doctrine of evolution, or interprets a field of study in evolutionary terms; an evolutionary biologist; (in wider sense) an adherent of evolutionism.
3. Biol. and Hist. Sci. = PREFORMATIONIST n. Cf. EVOLUTION n. 5b. rare.
B. adj. Chiefly attrib. Of, relating to, or characterized by evolutionism.
Aevolutionist isn’t a word because the resultant dipthong would mask the prefix.
But I’m asking you logically, they “lack belief” in all the above, which is the pop definition of atheism, so why aren’t they Aevolutionest, because it makes no since, so why is Atheist a special case?
I didn’t know that evolutionist was even a word. However, if evolutionist means, One who believes in the theory of evolution, than I suppose Aevolutionist would be a suitable term for one who is without a belief in that theory, whether it’s because they have never been introduced to the idea or whether they just flat out deny it. Good luck getting that term popularized though.
Come now, the term was just for the sake of argument. So, then, to support the claim that babies are atheists, and it not be a special case, you are willing to make them Aeverythingest?
Yes, but it turns out evolutionist is an actual term, just not a popular one.
Reductio ad absurdum…? I would say that newborn babies cannot believe in things or ideas that they have never been introduced to. People will obviously not assign labels to everything that you do or don’t believe in, no one is going to call you a “Spherical Earthist” even though it would probably be accurate, so it’s really not surprising that people don’t call babies “Apolitical” (Or plenty of other things) even though it would be accurate.
But this really isn’t about babies or what they believe. It’s about what you claim the definition of atheism is, and what I claim it is, and we already know that we don’t agree there.
Atheism is a choice, against, or the denial of, gods, you are assigning babies a choice where none has been made.
My children are not atheist or theists, they are simply ignorant of both positions at this time. At some point in the future they will come to understand the proposition, and will have to make a choice based on their view of the argument, that is the day the will be an atheist or (god forbid) a theist.
And I disagree. It can be a choice I suppose. I doubt I could bring myself to believe in god if I wanted to. I’m an atheist because the alternative is a preposterous idea supported by nothing solid. An atheist is someone who does not believe in god. That’s it. If you lack a belief in some kind of deity/deities (even if it’s through ignorance of the concept) you are an atheist. If you disagree with that then it’s pointless to continue arguing.
Andrew - 03 January 2010 04:05 PM
GAD - 03 January 2010 03:53 PM
My children are not atheist or theists, they are simply ignorant of both positions at this time.
(Andrew): Do they believe in the existence of god?
That’s the question. A simple yes or no solves that question. Or would you refer to them as agnostic?
(Andrew): I don’t choose not to believe. I just don’t. I can’t help it.
The fact that you can make that statement contradicts your premise.
GAD - 03 January 2010 03:53 PM
My children are not atheist or theists, they are simply ignorant of both positions at this time.
(Andrew): Do they believe in the existence of god?
They don’t know of gods directly, so far I have referred to all such things magic and have told them that magic isn’t real, but some silly people believe it is and to not be like them.
And I disagree. It can be a choice I suppose. I doubt I could bring myself to believe in god if I wanted to. I’m an atheist because the alternative is a preposterous idea supported by nothing solid. An atheist is someone who does not believe in god. That’s it. If you lack a belief in some kind of deity/deities (even if it’s through ignorance of the concept) you are an atheist. If you disagree with that then it’s pointless to continue arguing.
You made a choice, you looked at that the proposition and based on it’s arguments found it false. Other (most) people chose differently.
An atheist is someone who does not believe in god. That’s it. If you lack a belief in some kind of deity/deities (even if it’s through ignorance of the concept) you are an atheist. If you disagree with that then it’s pointless to continue arguing.
Clearly. It has been shown what the academic and majority position is, and it does not agree with yours.
(Andrew): I don’t choose not to believe. I just don’t. I can’t help it.
The fact that you can make that statement contradicts your premise.
(Andrew): ‘splain yourself.
(Andrew-previously): Do they believe in the existence of god?
GAD - 03 January 2010 05:38 PM
They don’t know of gods directly, so far I have referred to all such things magic and have told them that magic isn’t real, but some silly people believe it is and to not be like them.
(Andrew): You didn’t answer the question. Do your kids believe in the existence of god? Yes or no.
(Andrew-previously): Do they believe in the existence of god?
GAD - 03 January 2010 05:38 PM
They don’t know of gods directly, so far I have referred to all such things magic and have told them that magic isn’t real, but some silly people believe it is and to not be like them.
(Andrew): You didn’t answer the question. Do your kids believe in the existence of god? Yes or no.
I did answer, to them gods are something magical, likes angels, demons, ghosts, vampires, zombies, superheros the easter bunny, and magical things are not real.
Anyway Daniel, if you seriously believe any of this, you will really have to get your head examined. I mean, it is so ludicrous - Mormon himself, who was apparently living in North America, writing dates like “X happened in the year 360” (meaning of course 360 years AD) is completely insane. All this stuff happening in North America? Cities with populations equal to the grains of sand on a beach? The Lamanites at war with the Nephites? Armies of 44,000 versus armies of 42,000 somewhere on American soil 1500 years ago [from time of Smith’s account]? . . . I just can’t believe it - that anyone would believe a stitch of it!!
So you’re just going to appeal to ridicule?
I think that in order to protect yourself Daniel, you have interpretted my critique as ridicule, but you are entirely mistaken on this assessment. I was being completely serious in my comments, there is nothing remotely plausible in the BOM text that I have read. It is blatantly obvious that Smith was simply inventing these apparently historical narratives, especially when he inadvertantly slips from the Mormon dictation to his own voice and then back to the “historical’ author.
Maybe you are intelligent enough to take the BOM as a fantasy, but still maintain that god authored it (through Smith) and therefore it has divine relevance for you? But why then would you cite all these genetic connections and the linguistic coincidences if you did not want to bring some sort of historical credence to the work in question. If you are holding out hope that some contemporary geographical, genetic, or linguistic evidence will give credence to the facticity of the BOM, then you are plainly delusional beyond any question. Again Daniel, I am being very serious here, I am not ridiculing you or your beliefs but pointing out to you that the BOM is not sensible or reasonable in any verifiable way.
Why do you find it difficult to take me seriously here? Your charge of ‘ridicule’ comes across to me as a deliberate attempt to preclude any controversy.
