• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My continuing struggle with my Mormon nemesis.

Cainkane1

Philosopher
Cainkane1
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
9,011
Location
The great American southeast
John's Profile · Jim's Profile · John's Wall
John BeynonJim Collins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E
Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism
www.youtube.com
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/10/07/Richard_Dawkins_The_Greatest_Show_on_Earth Biologist Richard Dawkins identifies what he views is the single most compelling fact to refute Creationism -- but states that the real problem lies in convincing Creationists to listen to the evidence. "What ..
3 hours ago ·LikeUnlike · · Share · See Friendship.


John Beynon A closed mind is a disgrace to the human species.t
3 hours ago · LikeUnlike.Robert Cardinelle When one’s confidence is in the fragmented, theoretical, material model of life, for which in the final analysis there is only fragmented, theoretical, material evidence (however limited), of course in the carnal mind this can rival the non...-existence of physical material evidence for things defined as “spiritual,” particularly when one’s is depraved of understanding of the original spiritual propositions. In this case it is important to understand what you are criticizing and not have a closed mind. For in this case I see the Dawkins supporters in this particular argument having the closed minds.

Him

From what I see, your champion Dawkins is entirely unconcerned and displays no understanding of: i) creation is definitionally multifaceted; ii) he is void a solid creation definition for his model of life; iii) he displays zero understanding of scriptural perspectives of creation and how that relates to the temporal world and the Deital proposition.

For example: What is “creation?” What is the scriptural definition of creation? Can creationists be wrong and scriptural creation (which is fundamentally different) be true?
It is important to understand the “scriptural” meaning of creation. The 4th century Greek (Plato and Aristotelian) foundational arguments -- creation ex nihilo differ material and significantly from the ancient Hebrew tradition – creation ex materia. The two views are diametrically opposed. Ex materia gives a completely different meaning to “creation.”

Dawkins is not describing or explaining my Church’s creation views. He is instead stumbling over epistemic, ontological symbols. Dawkins views do not even remotely touch on the ancient scriptural view of creation. It’s as if he has never even heard of it.

What’s interesting is the my Church as a group has been reported to produce more scientists per capita which have contributed significantly to science as a group, than any other group of people in history on the earth. And being preeminent scientists in all fields of evolutionary biology, physics, chemistry, anthropology, archeology, astrophysics, etc., they still possess and ardently practice religious faith in their daily lives. Go figure.See More
Me
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike.John Beynon Dawkins has a good scientific understanding of biology. He has a good laymans understanding of scientific creation of the Universe. He rejects magic. He rejects superstition. He embraces reality.

Dawkins version of reality demands empiracle proof or enough evidence to have a decent reasonable theory.

Creationism in all of its variations provides none of these things. Sciences such as evolution are proven by the fossil record and by DNA. The relationship between all living things on earth is clearly demonstrated.

Other theories such as The Big Bang are laso supported by available evidence.

What do creationists have to offer? They have no verifyable methods by which to test their beliefs. They have faith. You can have faith in anything. To a decent scientist having faith in something you can't prove, demonstrate or offer evidence for is worse than useless.
 
Last edited:
I would like to know more about his assertion that Mormons produce more scientists per capita than any other group. Does he have any statistics to show how many mormon scientists there are? They're a small group, so even having a few dozen scientists may put them above scientists from larger religions on a per capita basis. The vast majority of working scientists today are atheist, so I would ask him for some citations. "It's been reported...." doesn't mean anything.
 
It's the mormon habit of converting "dead people" to their cause. It's called the baptism of the dead.
 
I would put it to your creationist friend that a financially robust religion might fund some research into the basic creationist model. Certainly, I would be impressed with some nice experiments that created life ex-nihilo.

This is the gauntlet that is never picked up. The investigation part. It is one thing to have an idea, but quite another to demonstrate it. So, just as I would want to demonstrate evolution in a lab or a computer program to show "how it works," I would expect a creationist to at least want to do the same.

What is the mechanism? How did God do it? Can we do it too?

All these would be useful areas of research. Can prayer create life? How about will? Is there some other principle that will do? Perhaps some of the many Mormon scientists could take this on.

When someone tells me, a priori, that such a research program is bound to fail, I am left thinking that they know, at some level, the entire story is make believe.
 
Sounds like your friend is moving the goal posts. "But that's not scriptural creation!"
 
John's Profile · Jim's Profile · John's Wall
John BeynonJim Collins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E
Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism
www.youtube.com
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/10/07/Richard_Dawkins_The_Greatest_Show_on_Earth Biologist Richard Dawkins identifies what he views is the single most compelling fact to refute Creationism -- but states that the real problem lies in convincing Creationists to listen to the evidence. "What ..
Yesterday at 8:06am ·LikeUnlike · · Share · See Friendship.
Craig Hicks likes this..
John Beynon A closed mind is a disgrace to the human species.t
Yesterday at 8:07am · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading....Robert Cardinelle When one’s confidence is in the fragmented, theoretical, material model of life, for which in the final analysis there is only fragmented, theoretical, material evidence (however limited), of course in the carnal mind this can rival the non...-existence of physical material evidence for things defined as “spiritual,” particularly when one’s is depraved of understanding of the original spiritual propositions. In this case it is important to understand what you are criticizing and not have a closed mind. For in this case I see the Dawkins supporters in this particular argument having the closed minds.

From what I see, your champion Dawkins is entirely unconcerned and displays no understanding of: i) creation is definitionally multifaceted; ii) he is void a solid creation definition for his model of life; iii) he displays zero understanding of scriptural perspectives of creation and how that relates to the temporal world and the Deital proposition.

For example: What is “creation?” What is the scriptural definition of creation? Can creationists be wrong and scriptural creation (which is fundamentally different) be true?
It is important to understand the “scriptural” meaning of creation. The 4th century Greek (Plato and Aristotelian) foundational arguments -- creation ex nihilo differ material and significantly from the ancient Hebrew tradition – creation ex materia. The two views are diametrically opposed. Ex materia gives a completely different meaning to “creation.”

Dawkins is not describing or explaining my Church’s creation views. He is instead stumbling over epistemic, ontological symbols. Dawkins views do not even remotely touch on the ancient scriptural view of creation. It’s as if he has never even heard of it.

What’s interesting is the my Church as a group has been reported to produce more scientists per capita which have contributed significantly to science as a group, than any other group of people in history on the earth. And being preeminent scientists in all fields of evolutionary biology, physics, chemistry, anthropology, archeology, astrophysics, etc., they still possess and ardently practice religious faith in their daily lives. Go figure.See More
Yesterday at 10:18am · LikeUnlike.John Beynon Dawkins has a good scientific understanding of biology. He has a good laymans understanding of scientific creation of the Universe. He rejects magic. He rejects superstition. He embraces reality.

Dawkins version of reality demands empir...acle proof or enough evidence to have a decent reasonable theory.

Creationism in all of its variations provides none of these things. Sciences such as evolution are proven by the fossil record and by DNA. The relationship between all living things on earth is clearly demonstrated.

Other theories such as The Big Bang are laso supported by available evidence.

What do creationists have to offer? They have no verifyable methods by which to test their beliefs. They have faith. You can have faith in anything. To a decent scientist having faith in something you can't prove, demonstrate or offer evidence for is worse than useless.See More
Yesterday at 11:18am · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading....Robert Cardinelle I don’t need your cheerleader antics; I need intelligent discussion of the fundamentals.
Thus far you’ve been unwilling or unable to i) demonstrate your ability to read or understand what you read. You’ve failed to explain why, in scientifi...c terms, or provide any evidence how “science” is omniscient and empiricism is the sum total of all ontologic and epistemic existence. You’ve failed solidly define “biblical creation” or relate modern theories to scriptural analogical symbolisms.

Cain, prove to me that you know what I am relating to you. Explain the divergent conclusions resulting from opposing ontological and epistemological creation scenarios in ex materia and ex nihilo. How do both support modern theoretical science and at the same time both opposed. Le me know that you are prepared knowledge wise for this discussion.

You express confidence and admiration in Dawkins scientific background to the point of peeing your pants at his mere raising of his eyebrows. Missing however, is your mindful-explanation why Dawkins’s background in Zoology is superior to any other scientist’s background in evolutionary biology or theoretical physics who have made greater contributions to science than Dawkins, and that enjoy both science and faith. You seem a little weak in that observation.

So do this for me: i) define the sum total of existence; ii) define truth unfolding and explain how truth unfolding is verified by empirical material reality and give your elaborative explanation; iv) explain why experiential evidence is invalid and what does that do to the meaning and value of individual life?; v) give your solid definition of creation; vi) give the ancient Hebrew definition of creation and how it differs from modern day creationists’ definitions; and vii) explain why definitionally-multifaceted creates poses a problem in the evolution v. creationist debate.

The 4th century Greek (Plato and Aristotelian) foundational arguments of creation dominated the world and in many institutions still do. How has this affected the relationship between religion and science where creation ex materia agrees with science?

If you cannot address these questions intelligently then a further conversation on this issue is absurd.See More
Yesterday at 12:29pm · LikeUnlike.John Beynon The sum total of existence came about as the result of random circumstances some know and some unknown. Some can be explained some cannot.

When discussing science it is unnecessary to have a knowledge of biblical scripture. The two are c...onflicted with the overwhelming portion of available scientific evidence being with the various and sundry sciences.

Your going to have to tell me where the bible and sciences fail to come into conflict. All I ever see during a discussion between for instance a young earth creationist and a geologist for instance is the scientist offering evidence for an earth a few billion years old and some Lete type young earther standing pat on the bible.

Evolution is the same way. A biologist offers science and a creationist offers faith. No evidence just faith. On the rare occassion they do attempt to offer evidence its worse than pathetic.

I personally am no scientist. If you want to argue religion go to James randis website or youtube.See More
23 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading....Jim Collins Science is shredding mythology.

I love it.
23 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading....John Beynon I wouldn't be having this discussion if Professor Dawins been having this argument with an Indian mystic who believes the earth is a cosmic egg floating on a cosmic sea.
23 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading....Robert Cardinelle Cain, I am annoyed by your braggadocio, uneducated, unformed, unseasoned, and imbalanced bloviating with vacuous comments blind to the substantial basis for synergistic relationships between science and religion. To put it bluntly, your arg...uments are a bore.

Perceived conflicts and dilemmas in science and religion in many cases are more artificial than real and more cultural than factual. The characters of science and theology are intellectual and spiritual enterprises. There is a genealogy of the conflict model between science and religion, which you seem to miss. Also what you perceive as scientific omniscience is merely the heavy emphasis of physics discarding its intellectual, social, and cultural enterprise.

You only display scant awareness of the “warfare model,” Such depravity voids science of any enterprising, dynamic process of engaging the world in dialogue with itself and the human mind. By doing so, you’ve replaced in science the pride once accorded to magic. You show no sensitivity how this bears on the substance of our debate.

You’ve over simplified differences between science and religion. You compare methods and metaphysical foundations of science and theology rather than their objectives and you derive these differences. Your point of view misses entirely unified atomistic and cosmological theories based on theological and scientific considerations. For instance, general themes of governing worlds, plurality of worlds, and creation as a process of organizing preexistent materials were all in place anciently and long before modern scientific query.

Theology recognizes the rational character of science, viewed as a search for truth on the potential for productive individual synthesis of scientific thought and religious faith. You miss that and from persons far superior intellectually and experientially than you. You mindset is focused solely on the thorns of the science relation warfare model.

The real problem arises in that the models and the language used by science are necessarily different from those usually invoked by theologians. Your strawman argument is to cling to "neoliteralism" to describe their literal interpretation of the creation narratives, ignoring that “ancient and “restored” theologians speak sympathetically to evolutionary theory and standard "old-earth" geological models of creation without any explicit rejection of scientific views. Hence, the version of creation that you reject bears scant resemblance to the ancient and restored versions of creation.
You’ve frozen theology in erroneous stages of understanding.

Just like religion cannot explain things, neither can science. For example, recent developments in cosmogony and evolution bring to light: i) the impact of nonlinear dynamics on our understanding of human freedom; where the nonlinear version of Newtonian mechanics is forcing scientists to give up the traditional link between deterministic behavior and predictability; and ii) the so-called "dark-matter" or "missing mass" problem—where the discovery that visible matter on which all present cosmologies are based may amount to as little as five percent of the total mass of the universe. If true, our present cosmological theories and the underlying physics would have to be viewed merely as special cases of far more general and still undiscovered laws. I guess that rules out your “Science is omniscient” views, doesn’t it?
 
Cainkane1 said:
John's Profile · Jim's Profile · John's Wall
John BeynonJim Collins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E
Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism
www.youtube.com
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/10/07/Richard_Dawkins_The_Greatest_Show_on_Earth Biologist Richard Dawkins identifies what he views is the single most compelling fact to refute Creationism -- but states that the real problem lies in convincing Creationists to listen to the evidence. "What ..
Yesterday at 8:06am ·LikeUnlike · · Share · See Friendship.
Craig Hicks likes this..
John Beynon A closed mind is a disgrace to the human species.t
Yesterday at 8:07am · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading....Robert Cardinelle When one’s confidence is in the fragmented, theoretical, material model of life, for which in the final analysis there is only fragmented, theoretical, material evidence (however limited), of course in the carnal mind this can rival the non...-existence of physical material evidence for things defined as “spiritual,” particularly when one’s is depraved of understanding of the original spiritual propositions. In this case it is important to understand what you are criticizing and not have a closed mind. For in this case I see the Dawkins supporters in this particular argument having the closed minds.

From what I see, your champion Dawkins is entirely unconcerned and displays no understanding of: i) creation is definitionally multifaceted; ii) he is void a solid creation definition for his model of life; iii) he displays zero understanding of scriptural perspectives of creation and how that relates to the temporal world and the Deital proposition.

For example: What is “creation?” What is the scriptural definition of creation? Can creationists be wrong and scriptural creation (which is fundamentally different) be true?
It is important to understand the “scriptural” meaning of creation. The 4th century Greek (Plato and Aristotelian) foundational arguments -- creation ex nihilo differ material and significantly from the ancient Hebrew tradition – creation ex materia. The two views are diametrically opposed. Ex materia gives a completely different meaning to “creation.”

Dawkins is not describing or explaining my Church’s creation views. He is instead stumbling over epistemic, ontological symbols. Dawkins views do not even remotely touch on the ancient scriptural view of creation. It’s as if he has never even heard of it.

What’s interesting is the my Church as a group has been reported to produce more scientists per capita which have contributed significantly to science as a group, than any other group of people in history on the earth. And being preeminent scientists in all fields of evolutionary biology, physics, chemistry, anthropology, archeology, astrophysics, etc., they still possess and ardently practice religious faith in their daily lives. Go figure.See More
Yesterday at 10:18am · LikeUnlike.John Beynon Dawkins has a good scientific understanding of biology. He has a good laymans understanding of scientific creation of the Universe. He rejects magic. He rejects superstition. He embraces reality.

Dawkins version of reality demands empir...acle proof or enough evidence to have a decent reasonable theory.

Creationism in all of its variations provides none of these things. Sciences such as evolution are proven by the fossil record and by DNA. The relationship between all living things on earth is clearly demonstrated.

Other theories such as The Big Bang are laso supported by available evidence.

What do creationists have to offer? They have no verifyable methods by which to test their beliefs. They have faith. You can have faith in anything. To a decent scientist having faith in something you can't prove, demonstrate or offer evidence for is worse than useless.See More
Yesterday at 11:18am · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading....Robert Cardinelle I don’t need your cheerleader antics; I need intelligent discussion of the fundamentals.
Thus far you’ve been unwilling or unable to i) demonstrate your ability to read or understand what you read. You’ve failed to explain why, in scientifi...c terms, or provide any evidence how “science” is omniscient and empiricism is the sum total of all ontologic and epistemic existence. You’ve failed solidly define “biblical creation” or relate modern theories to scriptural analogical symbolisms.

Cain, prove to me that you know what I am relating to you. Explain the divergent conclusions resulting from opposing ontological and epistemological creation scenarios in ex materia and ex nihilo. How do both support modern theoretical science and at the same time both opposed. Le me know that you are prepared knowledge wise for this discussion.

You express confidence and admiration in Dawkins scientific background to the point of peeing your pants at his mere raising of his eyebrows. Missing however, is your mindful-explanation why Dawkins’s background in Zoology is superior to any other scientist’s background in evolutionary biology or theoretical physics who have made greater contributions to science than Dawkins, and that enjoy both science and faith. You seem a little weak in that observation.

So do this for me: i) define the sum total of existence; ii) define truth unfolding and explain how truth unfolding is verified by empirical material reality and give your elaborative explanation; iv) explain why experiential evidence is invalid and what does that do to the meaning and value of individual life?; v) give your solid definition of creation; vi) give the ancient Hebrew definition of creation and how it differs from modern day creationists’ definitions; and vii) explain why definitionally-multifaceted creates poses a problem in the evolution v. creationist debate.

The 4th century Greek (Plato and Aristotelian) foundational arguments of creation dominated the world and in many institutions still do. How has this affected the relationship between religion and science where creation ex materia agrees with science?

If you cannot address these questions intelligently then a further conversation on this issue is absurd.See More
Yesterday at 12:29pm · LikeUnlike.John Beynon The sum total of existence came about as the result of random circumstances some know and some unknown. Some can be explained some cannot.

When discussing science it is unnecessary to have a knowledge of biblical scripture. The two are c...onflicted with the overwhelming portion of available scientific evidence being with the various and sundry sciences.

Your going to have to tell me where the bible and sciences fail to come into conflict. All I ever see during a discussion between for instance a young earth creationist and a geologist for instance is the scientist offering evidence for an earth a few billion years old and some Lete type young earther standing pat on the bible.

Evolution is the same way. A biologist offers science and a creationist offers faith. No evidence just faith. On the rare occassion they do attempt to offer evidence its worse than pathetic.

I personally am no scientist. If you want to argue religion go to James randis website or youtube.See More
23 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading....Jim Collins Science is shredding mythology.

I love it.
23 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading....John Beynon I wouldn't be having this discussion if Professor Dawins been having this argument with an Indian mystic who believes the earth is a cosmic egg floating on a cosmic sea.
23 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 2 peopleLoading....Robert Cardinelle Cain, I am annoyed by your braggadocio, uneducated, unformed, unseasoned, and imbalanced bloviating with vacuous comments blind to the substantial basis for synergistic relationships between science and religion. To put it bluntly, your arg...uments are a bore.

Perceived conflicts and dilemmas in science and religion in many cases are more artificial than real and more cultural than factual. The characters of science and theology are intellectual and spiritual enterprises. There is a genealogy of the conflict model between science and religion, which you seem to miss. Also what you perceive as scientific omniscience is merely the heavy emphasis of physics discarding its intellectual, social, and cultural enterprise.

You only display scant awareness of the “warfare model,” Such depravity voids science of any enterprising, dynamic process of engaging the world in dialogue with itself and the human mind. By doing so, you’ve replaced in science the pride once accorded to magic. You show no sensitivity how this bears on the substance of our debate.

You’ve over simplified differences between science and religion. You compare methods and metaphysical foundations of science and theology rather than their objectives and you derive these differences. Your point of view misses entirely unified atomistic and cosmological theories based on theological and scientific considerations. For instance, general themes of governing worlds, plurality of worlds, and creation as a process of organizing preexistent materials were all in place anciently and long before modern scientific query.

Theology recognizes the rational character of science, viewed as a search for truth on the potential for productive individual synthesis of scientific thought and religious faith. You miss that and from persons far superior intellectually and experientially than you. You mindset is focused solely on the thorns of the science relation warfare model.

The real problem arises in that the models and the language used by science are necessarily different from those usually invoked by theologians. Your strawman argument is to cling to "neoliteralism" to describe their literal interpretation of the creation narratives, ignoring that “ancient and “restored” theologians speak sympathetically to evolutionary theory and standard "old-earth" geological models of creation without any explicit rejection of scientific views. Hence, the version of creation that you reject bears scant resemblance to the ancient and restored versions of creation.
You’ve frozen theology in erroneous stages of understanding.

Just like religion cannot explain things, neither can science. For example, recent developments in cosmogony and evolution bring to light: i) the impact of nonlinear dynamics on our understanding of human freedom; where the nonlinear version of Newtonian mechanics is forcing scientists to give up the traditional link between deterministic behavior and predictability; and ii) the so-called "dark-matter" or "missing mass" problem—where the discovery that visible matter on which all present cosmologies are based may amount to as little as five percent of the total mass of the universe. If true, our present cosmological theories and the underlying physics would have to be viewed merely as special cases of far more general and still undiscovered laws. I guess that rules out your “Science is omniscient” views, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
I've never seen rambling like this in my life.
 
Sledge said:
Have you considered just not talking to this guy?
Click to expand...
Me and this guy go back a long way. Its a long story. It would be a love hate relationship if we were of the opposite sex. We thrive on cutting each other down. Paradoxically we take up for each other when someone outside tries to do it.

In many ways this Mormon chap is interesting; interesting but frustrating.
 
If I may be blunt. Your problem with this guy (in my opinion) is that you haven't really accepted that he believes the crap he spews. It seems like you are sort of of the mind that if you give him enough evidence somehow you will show him up.

You can't. He's nuts.

I had a friend of mine send me an email all about how God punishes people who don't believe in God. I'm sitting there reading the email wondering how in the world she'd think it was appropriate.

Some people like this are busted upstairs. You have to just accept it. I no longer debate with these types. The same way I don't debate with people who believe they were abducted by aliens or that Big Foot really exists or the illuminati. Etc.

Stop lowering yourself. From now on when he posts something like this just reply

"I'm sure you believe this is true."

After a while you'll not talk to him. Trust me, I've been through this.
 
Robert Cardinelle Based upon your comments for the last 15 years, it is clear that your disbelief arises from NOT KNOWING the subject matter which you criticize and disbelieve. Consequently (as it is written anciently and modernly), your reactions are predi...ctable but amount to nothing. There is no glory in them. You cannot possibly apply the principles to recognize, discern and gain any promised perspective or results; hence you dwell boastfully in disbelief as if that is some degree of superior glory.

In this mortal sphere, you're not any more intelligent, educated, or scientifically perceptive than anyone else on this string. In fact you might be less. As there are people here with Masters and on occasion PhD degrees. You glory in stubbornness and limited knowledge and that is your privilege and choice. However, in the realm of that which you deny and criticize, others know what you know and still believe. Alone, yours is the lowest realm of gloried existence; the lowest degree of glory. Again, living as such is your privilege and choice.

There is no other outcome expected from one in your chosen disposition. That you have no clue or reason to believe, or that you cannot accept anything that you cannot sense with your five senses is to be expected. Your disposition is analogues to believing that rocks are the design and operation sentient intelligence and its existence. This should not come as any surprise to you since the same is unequivocally stated in Truth’s terms and conditions, which you have rigorously read and understand, right?.

So as you revel in your braggadocios disbelief and make every vain attempt to gain glorious recognition here for the same, criticizing principles which you have never taken the time or made the effort to understand clearly, and claiming that there are no gods or can be no God, put down your beer and refrain from your secret, fleshly indulgences and at least make the honest, sincere effort to understand the TERMS upon which the propositions you are criticizing and rejecting are made, and address others who are intelligent as you (if not more so) and who also believe with respect and understanding. I have told you this at least a hundred times before
 
Cainkane1 said:
Robert Cardinelle Based upon your comments for the last 15 years, it is clear that your disbelief arises from NOT KNOWING the subject matter which you criticize and disbelieve. Consequently (as it is written anciently and modernly), your reactions are predi...ctable but amount to nothing. There is no glory in them. You cannot possibly apply the principles to recognize, discern and gain any promised perspective or results; hence you dwell boastfully in disbelief as if that is some degree of superior glory.

In this mortal sphere, you're not any more intelligent, educated, or scientifically perceptive than anyone else on this string. In fact you might be less. As there are people here with Masters and on occasion PhD degrees. You glory in stubbornness and limited knowledge and that is your privilege and choice. However, in the realm of that which you deny and criticize, others know what you know and still believe. Alone, yours is the lowest realm of gloried existence; the lowest degree of glory. Again, living as such is your privilege and choice.

There is no other outcome expected from one in your chosen disposition. That you have no clue or reason to believe, or that you cannot accept anything that you cannot sense with your five senses is to be expected. Your disposition is analogues to believing that rocks are the design and operation sentient intelligence and its existence. This should not come as any surprise to you since the same is unequivocally stated in Truth’s terms and conditions, which you have rigorously read and understand, right?.

So as you revel in your braggadocios disbelief and make every vain attempt to gain glorious recognition here for the same, criticizing principles which you have never taken the time or made the effort to understand clearly, and claiming that there are no gods or can be no God, put down your beer and refrain from your secret, fleshly indulgences and at least make the honest, sincere effort to understand the TERMS upon which the propositions you are criticizing and rejecting are made, and address others who are intelligent as you (if not more so) and who also believe with respect and understanding. I have told you this at least a hundred times before
Click to expand...
Sometimes I strongly doubt this persons sanity. Here he is a Mormon which in my opinion is a faith that slams the door in the face of reason and he's crapping on me because I every once in a blue moon support such astronomers as Stephen Dawkins and Carl Sagan. Since he discusses his faith on facebook I guess I can discuss my lack thereof on the same forum.

Here is religious hypocracy at its worst.
 
You have been weighed on the scales of Mormonism and found wanting. Go thy way in error and peace my son. :D

sound of shoes having the dust shaken off

Persecution is a fuel that runs this little engine that can. I'm not sure what exactly separates Mormonism from a conspiracy theory, but the mental processes are the same. For Mormonism to be true, the entire nature of the world is completely different than you and nearly every reasoning person thinks it is. In reality, the world is a magical place filled with miracles, supernatural entities, immortals, and divine magic that happens everyday. Only the willfully blind reject that. We are all guilty of making the world look like something it is not.

His argument is more or less a personal attack, I can't even call it an appeal to authority. People smarter than you have weighed in favor of his belief, that is good enough for him.

His arguments actually fail the contest of sectarianism. He has no answer for why God allowed the various conflicting sects of Mormonism, the multiple versions of The Book of Mormon, starkly different Doctrine and Covenants. And why, knowing that these conflicts existed - followers of Brigham Young were re-baptised when they arrived in Utah. He has the arrogance and comfort that comes from blissful ignorance taught in Sunday school.
 
Cainkane1 said:
Sometimes I strongly doubt this persons sanity. Here he is a Mormon which in my opinion is a faith that slams the door in the face of reason and he's crapping on me because I every once in a blue moon support such astronomers as Stephen Dawkins and Carl Sagan. Since he discusses his faith on facebook I guess I can discuss my lack thereof on the same forum.

Here is religious hypocracy at its worst.
Click to expand...

Who the hell is Stephen Dawkins? :)

It's all paradigms though ain't it? In your Mormon buddy's paradigm he's perfectly sane and everything he believes in is consistent. That's what's so dangerous about religion IMO, every argument is turned back by self-referencing reasoning. It's like being trapped inside a sphere.
 
Robert wrote: "Annie -- Until you know more, and have spiritual evidence of the same, you keep your beliefs about Jesus Christ. Even in your marginalized knowledge state respecting it, a steadfast adherence to Christ will give you more wisdom for you, your family and you future life than science can any day of the week. Science is unrelated to and a distraction from one’s pursuit of an increase in their personal moral free agency. There is no conflict between God, Jesus Christ and true science. Notice I said “true science.” That is important. Truth is truth regardless of the source, be it personal experiential revelation, Biblical, Theological, Ontological, or Epistemological, Philosophical; Ethical, Logical, etc. Science too has truths; however, in most cases it’s secular truth, not eternal (spiritual) truth. Not all truths are eternal or equal. There are greater truths and lesser truths. Christ’s truths are superior and more reliable for your life come life or death. Christ came not to make scientist of everyman. That notion is ridiculous. He came to free man from the well known and horrible effects of sin. He came to permit man to progress spiritually (remember His kingdom is not of this world). He came to enable them to enjoy increases in their moral free agencies, which is eternal life. Christ didn’t give or promise fullness in secular knowledge (science). He promised fullness only in his Gospel Law as it pertains to this world. So Bible is deliberately sketchy and obscure in detail respecting how He organized the materials for this earth and our physical bodies. Celestial knowledge (something science will never attain unto unaided by Deity), is reserved for those who prove themselves worthy through faith and obedience while in this mortal probationary period. Just let me add that “Create” in the Old Testament does not mean to create out of nothing; or ex nihilo. It means to create Ex Materia, or out of pre-existing materials. The former doctrine was introduced extra biblically in the third century via Greek metaphysical, philosophical theology. When taken as classical literalism, the doctrine conflicts with science. Christ’s Gospel does not conflict with true science. The blessing is having the wisdom to know the differences between the two."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom