LDS

[Craig4]

Critics of the LDS Church (and religion in general) operate from a no-God paradigm. Thus, since there is no God (in their opinion), the historicity and teachings of a religion are rife with error; in fact, none of it is acceptable. Once a critic embraces that paradigm, there is nothing a faith-based person can say that will be acceptable.

I should add that there was a time, in a more civil age, when it was considered boorish and coarse to denigrate a person's faith, and--by extrapolation--the person himself/herself. Obviously the practice of good manners and mutual respect--in religious belief and virtually everything else--is now ancient history.

So is it okay in your view for a Mormon to try and convert me?

 

[angrysoba]

So is it okay in your view for a Mormon to try and convert me?

It's more than okay, I am sure, because proselytizing Mormons are trying to save your soul and let you in on the Eternal Truths. Whereas we are trying to take away sacred beliefs and Eternal Truths.

 

[AdMan]

I should add that there was a time, in a more civil age, when it was considered boorish and coarse to denigrate a person's faith, and--by extrapolation--the person himself/herself. Obviously the practice of good manners and mutual respect--in religious belief and virtually everything else--is now ancient history.

Ha!

Do you have any idea where you are posting? Is anyone forcing you or Janadele to post here?

It is not about what you may think are "good manners and mutual respect". It is about free and open intellectual discussion.

If you want something else, maybe you should go elsewhere.

 

[Craig4]

Rather, you are telling her to disbelieve everything she holds sacred. I question the ethicality of that.

Why should a religious belief be held in a special category of irrational ideas that can't be challenged?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Critics of the LDS Church (and religion in general) operate from a no-God paradigm. Thus, since there is no God (in their opinion), the historicity and teachings of a religion are rife with error; in fact, none of it is acceptable. Once a critic embraces that paradigm, there is nothing a faith-based person can say that will be acceptable.

I should add that there was a time, in a more civil age, when it was considered boorish and coarse to denigrate a person's faith, and--by extrapolation--the person himself/herself. Obviously the practice of good manners and mutual respect--in religious belief and virtually everything else--is now ancient history.

Garbage. They can say anything and support it with proper compelling evidence and it will be listened to and accepted if the evidence is strong enough.

What they can't do is simply play the God/Scripture card to avoid supporting their arguments and expect it to be accepted.

As for your second bit, if you can't support what you believe with anything other than childish avoidance why should I respect it?

With regards Mormons, prior to this thread I had a very limited but generally positive experience with them. The participation of the 'true believers' in this thread has made me think twice about them now.

 

[asydhouse]

Originally Posted by skyrider44
Reality based on the non-existence of God

We have no need of that hypotheses.

Not only do we not need the god-exists hypothesis, we don't even need the god-does-not-exist hypothesis!

We just assume that the manifesting universe is self-consistent, and therefore, whether or not god exists, the universe is discoverable through systematic observation, reasoning from observation, and experiment.

Skyrider has been thinking scientists come up with hypotheses and then proceed to try to confirm their hypotheses. But that's exactly opposite to the actual practice of science which is to try to disprove their hypotheses!

Scientists trust the theories which have been so tested, because so far no one has found a way to show the original (or modified in the light of experimental results) hypotheses to be wrong. The moment the data contradict the hypothesis, it's either finished and thrown out, or modified and retested until it is either working without error or finally abandoned altogether.

Skyfall, I urge you to take a moment and consider this. Scientists do not try to prove themselves to be correct.

You are arguing against a nonexistent enemy. You have a fantasy image of science and scientists, and you are interpreting everything we say through a filter which is distorting your understanding of what we say (and why we say it). It's like a little prison you are making for your mind.

I'm not saying your religion is the prison. I'm saying you don't understand what we are saying.

I'm also disappointed to see that you disrespect me so much as to not answer my request for your help with my profound disappointment with your church... my church, if you recall. By which I can say that I know where you are coming from a lot better than you seem to understand scientific thinking.

Why are you two ignoring me? It's always the same, people are more comfortable fighting their imaginary enemies than actually talking to a real person. The arguments rage on, leaving my inconvenient attempts to communicate like human beings in the trampled dust.

Kind of depressing, frankly.

 

[skyrider44]

Ha!

Do you have any idea where you are posting?

Yes, at "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way" [emphasis added].

: Is anyone forcing you or Janadele to post here?

You ask a throw-away question.

: It is not about what you may think are "good manners and mutual respect". It is about free and open intellectual discussion.

Indeed it is, with the proviso that such discussion should be conducted in a "friendly and lively way."

: If you want something else, maybe you should go elsewhere.

Or perhaps those presumably dedicated to participating in discussion in a "friendly and lively way" should honor the forum's mission statement.

It's fine to challenge Janadele's position and insist that she defend it; but it isn't fine to attack her personally, as some on this forum have done.

 

[godless dave]

I should add that there was a time, in a more civil repressive age, when it was considered boorish and coarse to denigrate a person's faith, and--by extrapolation--the person himself/herself.

Fixed that for you.

Telling someone "You're belief is wrong, and here's why" is respectful. It implies that you think that person has the ability to examine their own ideas and discard them if they are found lacking.

 

[Mashuna]

Yes, at "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way" [emphasis added].

So your complaint is that you do not consider people to be friendly enough, whilst others are unhappy that Janadele is failing to discuss anything, or use any critical thinking?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes, at "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way" [emphasis added].

It doesn't say that it's a place to proselytize and ignore difficult questions?

You ask a throw-away question.

We'll add it to the list of those you refuse to answer.

Indeed it is, with the proviso that such discussion should be conducted in a "friendly and lively way."

Without mindless proselytizing?

Or perhaps those presumably dedicated to participating in discussion in a "friendly and lively way" should honor the forum's mission statement.

We'd appreciate it if you and Janadele would choose to participate in that spirit.

It's fine to challenge Janadele's position and insist that she defend it; but it isn't fine to attack her personally, as some on this forum have done.

When will you or she be addressing the first part in re: defending her position?

What is your take on the anachronisms in question?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yes, at "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way" [emphasis added].

The problem seems to be that you regard statements like, "I think you are wrong", to be unfriendly. Being friendly doesn't mean agreeing never to express disagreement.

You ask a throw-away question.

No, AdMan is making a good point. If you are offended because people question your claims on a forum that exists for the purpose of questioning people's claims, then it is you who have the problem and you have no standing to imply that we are in the wrong. If you feel anyone is personally attacking you or anyone else, then by all means, report them to the moderators. Otherwise, perhaps you can simply deal with the fact that people are going to question your claims and actually start answering some of those questions.

It's fine to challenge Janadele's position and insist that she defend it; but it isn't fine to attack her personally, as some on this forum have done.

Who has done this, and in which posts?

 

[jsfisher]

What is your take on the anachronisms in question?

Skyrider44 won't answer that. You don't need to look too closely at his or her posts to see the goal is not to discuss much of anything. He or she just picks away at irrelevant asides and equivocations. The purpose is strictly to divert attention from any real questions while making out Janadele as the victim.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Skyrider44 won't answer that. You don't need to look too closely at his or her posts to see the goal is not to discuss much of anything. He or she just picks away at irrelevant asides and equivocations. The purpose is strictly to divert attention from any real questions while making out Janadele as the victim.

Then our job, if we choose to accept it, should be to encourage him to refocus back on the substantive issues and escape from his martyrdom complex.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Then our job, if we choose to accept it, should be to encourage him to refocus back on the substantive issues and escape from his martyrdom complex.

It's a waste of time anyway. You can never get that last nail in.

 

[poblob14]

Reality based on the non-existence of God.

A five-minute visit to Rapture Ready will disabuse you of that notion.

Or a visit to virtually any ex-Mormon website, most of which are full of Christians (and which may hurt your head less than RR ).

 

[RoboTimbo]

It's a waste of time anyway. You can never get that last nail in.

Them not answering questions serves a purpose too. I don't ask in hopes of getting an answer for my own edification. I ask for the purpose of exposing how dishonest they are in how they answer or avoid answering. The R&P forum is a pulic one which comes up in search engines.

 

[bruto]

Critics of the LDS Church (and religion in general) operate from a no-God paradigm. Thus, since there is no God (in their opinion), the historicity and teachings of a religion are rife with error; in fact, none of it is acceptable. Once a critic embraces that paradigm, there is nothing a faith-based person can say that will be acceptable.

I should add that there was a time, in a more civil age, when it was considered boorish and coarse to denigrate a person's faith, and--by extrapolation--the person himself/herself. Obviously the practice of good manners and mutual respect--in religious belief and virtually everything else--is now ancient history.

What civil age are we talking about here? The civil age in which Mormons were massacred in their journey across the US by devout Christians? The civil age in which Mormons did not exist at all, but other devout Christians burned each other for heresy? There has never been an age in which one faith has not persecuted others. In the meantime you are guilty of a false dichotomy here. Many of the critics of the Mormon faith do so from a theist perspective. It is not, after all, the atheists who would exclude Mormons from the blanket term of "Christians." It is other Christians. In any case, a great deal of the criticism I've seen here has nothing to do with god or no god, but with specific questions of Mormon history, doctrine and origins. Questions of historicity and error are quite possible for anyone, theist or not. Your criticism is careless and lacking in insight.

 

[godless dave]

What civil age are we talking about here? The civil age in which Mormons were massacred in their journey across the US by devout Christians?

And vice versa.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Them not answering questions serves a purpose too. I don't ask in hopes of getting an answer for my own edification. I ask for the purpose of exposing how dishonest they are in how they answer or avoid answering. The R&P forum is a pulic one which comes up in search engines.

Oh, I agree. I was just making a joke about self-martyrdom.

 

[dafydd]

It's a waste of time anyway. You can never get that last nail in.

Neil, is that you?