antishock8 wrote:Even if Mr. Harris does believe in those things I can guarantee you that he would expect his beliefs to be scrutinized and tested for validity. I think CC's feelings are hurt that someone casts as critical an eye toward his faith as he does against the "demonstrable fraud" that is Mormonism. Team Christian doesn't like Team Skeptic.
Actually, we don't like Team "Just Enough of Learning to Misquote." Unlike Christianity, Mormonism is completely ahistorical and can't even get off the ground.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
JohnStuartMill wrote:Seriously. If you're going to believe in sparkle Jesus magic, you might as well believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon out of a hat. What makes one more ridiculous than the other?
He might as well believe that J.S. used whatever hocus pocus but he doesn't, he restricts his irrational beliefs to Jesus magic.
Calculus Crusader wrote: Your political "science" degree comes to the fore once again. There is a mountain of evidence against the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. Holy Joe's alleged method of "translation" is irrelevant to that fact.
You are like a caricature of a CARMS poster.
Regarding "translation":
At least most Mormons understand where their religious text came from. It's not like Christians have any clue. I'd say 75% of them think Matthew wrote "Matthew" and Mark wrote "Mark", etc...
JohnStuartMill wrote:Seriously. If you're going to believe in sparkle Jesus magic, you might as well believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon out of a hat. What makes one more ridiculous than the other?
Your political "science" degree comes to the fore once again. There is a mountain of evidence against the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. Holy Joe's alleged method of "translation" is irrelevant to that fact.
I don't know that there's a mountain of evidence against the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon, but there's definitely a lack of evidence where you'd expect a mountain to be. But then, one could say the same thing about a global flood, or the power of prayer, too.
antishock8 wrote:Even if Mr. Harris does believe in those things I can guarantee you that he would expect his beliefs to be scrutinized and tested for validity. I think CC's feelings are hurt that someone casts as critical an eye toward his faith as he does against the "demonstrable fraud" that is Mormonism. Team Christian doesn't like Team Skeptic.
Actually, we don't like Team "Just Enough of Learning to Misquote." Unlike Christianity, Mormonism is completely ahistorical and can't even get off the ground.
Talking snakes = historical? A dude walking on water = historical? Global flood = historical? A dude bringing back another dude from the dead = historical? A dude getting swallowed by a whale = historical?
You have a very interesting definition of that word, my friend.
Calculus Crusader wrote: Your political "science" degree comes to the fore once again. There is a mountain of evidence against the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. Holy Joe's alleged method of "translation" is irrelevant to that fact.
You are like a caricature of a CARMS poster.
Regarding "translation":
At least most Mormons understand where their religious text came from. It's not like Christians have any clue. I'd say 75% of them think Matthew wrote "Matthew" and Mark wrote "Mark", etc...
Mormons think their religious texts came from ancients and they are flatly wrong. As for the authors of the Gospels, Mark could have written Mark. Matthew lacks the perspective one would expect from one of Jesus' apostles, but it need not have been written by an apostle to be reliable.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
antishock8 wrote:Even if Mr. Harris does believe in those things I can guarantee you that he would expect his beliefs to be scrutinized and tested for validity. I think CC's feelings are hurt that someone casts as critical an eye toward his faith as he does against the "demonstrable fraud" that is Mormonism. Team Christian doesn't like Team Skeptic.
Actually, we don't like Team "Just Enough of Learning to Misquote." Unlike Christianity, Mormonism is completely ahistorical and can't even get off the ground.
Team "Just Enough of Learning to Misquote"?
All your bases are belong to us.
Anyway.
How did koala bears make it to Australia after the flood? I've always been curious about that one...
JohnStuartMill wrote:Seriously. If you're going to believe in sparkle Jesus magic, you might as well believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon out of a hat. What makes one more ridiculous than the other?
He might as well believe that J.S. used whatever hocus pocus but he doesn't, he restricts his irrational beliefs to Jesus magic.
Please. You are the incarnation of credulity when it comes to sources critical of theism in general and Christianity in particular.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei
(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
GoodK wrote:You are like a caricature of a CARMS poster.
Regarding "translation":
At least most Mormons understand where their religious text came from. It's not like Christians have any clue. I'd say 75% of them think Matthew wrote "Matthew" and Mark wrote "Mark", etc...
Mormons think their religious texts came from ancients and they are flatly wrong. As for the authors of the Gospels, Mark could have written Mark. Matthew lacks the perspective one would expect from one of Jesus' apostles, but it need not have been written by an apostle to be reliable.
This isn't much of a distinction. You're basically saying that Harry Potter could be a true story because we know who J.K. Rowling is, or that Dianetics is true because L. Ron Hubbard was a real person. Not exactly convincing.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Calculus Crusader wrote:Please. You are the incarnation of credulity when it comes to sources critical of theism in general and Christianity in particular.
I wasn't aware that you needed to have some source to disbelieve the proposition "a magic man walked on a lake".
