A "Convenient Truth."

Offense is the best defense.  Let's answer this Facebook post from a very confused Mormon. 

The way I see this post, it is more of an emotional "sama ng loob" than an actual argument. I don’t know. Maybe the confused Mormon guy got trampled on a debate with an atheist. Anyways, according to his post, an atheist never gets merits by using science as an offense (What?) against religion and theism. Oh my...

An atheist on a debate doesn't just use science to get merits (?) when confronted by confused Mormon guys. Knowledge is a tool and an atheist is free to use different varieties of this handy tool. Here’s a good example...

Let say the confused Mormon guy will claim so-called Nephites and Lemanites from ancient Palestine have occupied Mesoamerica in the pre-Columbian period (somewhere between 2,800 BCE to 400 CE) as according to Joseph Smith and his Book of Mormon. Do you think that an atheist will just have to accept this word for word? Of course not! The atheist will have to question the confused Mormon guy's claims, and here where the presentation of evidence enters the conversation. Now, if the confused Mormon guy will present suspicious "evidences" to defend his claims, an atheist will not only use science but also history, anthropology and archeology as well. It's not about getting "merits." It's about presentation of evidences supported by credible data. 

"Prove it"

If the confused Mormon guy will claim that Nephites and Lemanites from ancient Palestine have occupied Mesoamerica in the pre-Columbian period, then he has to authenticate his claims. 

The question "Can you prove it?" is not an atheist's "self-defeated question" for justification. It is just an inquiry asking for the confused Mormon guy to substantiate his claims. Remember, extra ordinary claims needs extra ordinary evidence. An atheist will NOT just accept assertions without any supporting data presented. The confused Mormon guy should authenticate his claims. 

Two Versions of Truth?

The confused Mormon guy's rant ended with another claim: Two versions of "truth." According to him, there's a religious (spiritual) truth and a scientific truth. We have an idea that when we talk about scientific truth, it's a kind of truth that works. Example, it is a scientific truth to say that vaccines work against some diseases like measles, polio and flu. 

So, what about religious/spiritual truth? 

 

It is a convenient to the confused Mormon guy to split "truth" into two so he can always hide his doctrine's distorted facts by applying a dumb excuse that the truth of Joseph Smith's claims are all under religious truth. But wait...

Biblical Christians says that Mormons are not to be considered as Christians since Mormons deny 11 of the 16 essential Christian doctrines. Therefore they should be considered as a cult. That's a religious truth claim so, is it a religious truth? Christians also claims that The Book of Mormons and other books used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are uninspired books. That Mormon teachings and doctrines are not from Jesus. That Mormons are dubious, and heretical. That's also a religious truth claim, so are they religious truth? 

Having two or more "truths' is not a convenience. The more "truth" we claim, the more we become confused, just like the Mormon guy.

Until next time.