truth dancer wrote: To be honest I am very embarrassed about it all.
Why should you be embarrassed for growing as a human being? You've become something new. While it seems we are certainly on different sides of the aisle, I applaud you for being open and vulnerable. That's Godly participation in life!!
Buffalo wrote:There is no other kind of arm to rely on but the arm of flesh.
Do you know that for a fact? If not, you need to allow for the possibility.
Regards, MG
Do you know for a fact that invisible fairies don't sharpen your eyelashes with tiny whetstones while you sleep? If not, you need to allow for the possibility.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Do you know for a fact that invisible fairies don't sharpen your eyelashes with tiny whetstones while you sleep? If not, you need to allow for the possibility.
Can you ever discuss religion/spirituality without being condescending?
Do you know for a fact that invisible fairies don't sharpen your eyelashes with tiny whetstones while you sleep? If not, you need to allow for the possibility.
Can you ever discuss religion/spirituality without being condescending?
It's not condescending. It's a fair rebuttal to a claim often made by believers - that if you don't know for sure that some improbable thing isn't real, then you must take it seriously. The type of rebuttal I gave puts such a proposition in its proper context. The level of evidence for invisible fairies and the human soul is comparable - that is to say, no credible evidence exists for either. Should we take seriously every fantastic claim, or just the ones that people have emotional attachments to?
I have yet to see a believer respond to such a rebuttal. Instead they ask again that we (atheists) privileged their arguments with more respect than they've earned.
This has nothing to do with being condescending toward a person. My response is to the argument, which is weak.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo: Do you know for a fact that invisible fairies don't sharpen your eyelashes with tiny whetstones while you sleep? If not, you need to allow for the possibility.
Hoops: Can you ever discuss religion/spirituality without being condescending?
MG: Easiest way to avoid answering a question is by answering with another question that may not have anything to do with the substance of the original question.
Deflection.
Comparing the creator of our universe with little fairies is a bit disingenuous and overly simplistic.
Having to default to a position of relying solely upon the "arm of flesh" is an untenable position if one accepts the possibility that God is the ultimate source of truth and reveals it according to his own ways and means.
To base one's faith and/or testimony of ultimate truth upon what goes on in the minds and even hearts of humans is risky in my estimation. Although, let it be said, that investigations through the use of the mind/intellect are useful and interesting.
Joseph Smith himself encouraged it.
Regards, MG
Last edited by _mentalgymnast on Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
xolotl wrote:Half way through my mission i started becoming an apologist. A little over half a year after my mission, participating on the MAD board and actually reading all the sources rather than only reading the FAIR/FARMS / apologetics it wasn't long before I gave up on apologetics. Another year later I was an apostate. Apologetics put my testimony in ruin faster and harsher than any "anti-mormon" material.
I still remember going on MADb and always getting a kick out of DCP, hamblin, etc. remarks, witty insults, dismissals, and their overall argumentative and superior behavior/attitude towards most critics. It was amusing for a month or two, then it became a tiresome. They rarely addressed the criticism and when called out would simply paste FAIR/FARM links as a response. Naturally I read it all and in many cases the links never answered the questions or were simply inadequate. It wasn't long before I got sick of this behavior and began to question many of the conclusions. After reading all sources, both pro and critical, it wasn't long before I found myself disagreeing with many of the apologist responses. Another very problematic behavior with the apologists was to simply dismiss the prophets, seers and revelators they profess to believe in. It did not matter if the prophet said he was speaking in the name of the Lord, it was simply his opinion if in fact what he said was at odds with the apologist' conclusions. Eventually it was too much work to try to find a way to believe in the church when its prophets are anything but that, the apologists lie about doctrine and practice character assassination rather than attempt to give rebuttals to the criticism, and the church can't be honest about its past and present. Thanks MAD, FAIR, FARMS, and all you rambunctious apologists, you made it all so clear.
mentalgymnast wrote: Easiest way to avoid answering a question is by answering with another question that may not have anything to do with the substance of the original question.
Deflection.
Comparing the creator of our universe with little fairies is a bit disingenuous and overly simplistic.
It's not a deflection. Please tell me how the available evidence for this "creator of the universe" exceeds the evidence for invisible fairies. If it doesn't, why should I take it seriously?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
mentalgymnast wrote: Easiest way to avoid answering a question is by answering with another question that may not have anything to do with the substance of the original question.
Deflection.
Comparing the creator of our universe with little fairies is a bit disingenuous and overly simplistic.
It's not a deflection. Please tell me how the available evidence for this "creator of the universe" exceeds the evidence for invisible fairies. If it doesn't, why should I take it seriously?