The lack of logic that encompasses this joint

[_stemelbow]

Nobody is subject to my "hostility" except you. This is because you're an obvious troll. Stop trying to drag other people into this. I've already outlined what I would consider a "win."

Iknow...you've got the "let's get rid of other people because they are different from me" approach.

[_Molok]

Nobody is subject to my "hostility" except you. This is because you're an obvious troll. Stop trying to drag other people into this. I've already outlined what I would consider a "win."

Iknow...you've got the "let's get rid of other people because they are different from me" approach.

Substitute trolls for people and you have the general idea yes. Funny, you always seem to be able to grasp what people are saying in a clinch. And oh my goodness! You forgot to put in any stupid hillbillyisms into that post.

[_Buffalo]

The LDS church, unlike an unspecific notion of god, has been proven false without a shadow of a doubt.

I'd like to see proof of this, atheist. I laugh because here you admit that your one position is untenable but then another is tenable. Anyway, perhaps you should start by defining exactly what you mean by "proven false without a shadow of a doubt". Whose doubt, or non-doubt? And what do you mean by "proven"?

I disagree with Shermer's logic presented in the OP, for the record.

Proven false without a shadow of a doubt on many, many issues. But only one is required. The most obvious one that comes to mind is the presence of Deutero-Isaiah on the Brass Plates in the Book of Mormon narrative.

[_stemelbow]

I disagree with Shermer's logic presented in the OP, for the record.

Well then offer a response.

Proven false without a shadow of a doubt on many, many issues. But only one is required. The most obvious one that comes to mind is the presence of Deutero-Isaiah on the Brass Plates in the Book of Mormon narrative.

I'm not sure you are using proven or without a shadow of a doubt meaningfully. Please offer your ideas of what you mean when you say these things. This particular example seems like an enormous stretch in support of your claim--to say the least.

[_just me]

What does "the church is true" mean stem?

What do you think of criticism from the non-atheist crowd?

[_stemelbow]

What does "the church is true" mean stem?

Depends on whose saying it, I suppose. It seems most often to mean or suggest that the Church is that which was organized by Christ.

What do you think of criticism from the non-atheist crowd?

I don't' know. I think differently of different criticisms altogether. I take them one at a time and make up my mind on what I think of them. It doesn't matter from whence it comes for me.

[_Molok]

Guys, this is a thread started by Stemelbow, chastizing the board for a lack of logic. This is obviously supposed to be a comedy thread.

[_Buffalo]

This make's Darth J's thread about Joseph's romantic encounters with Brigham all the more poignant. The point seemed to fly over your head at the time. Perhaps it makes more sense to you now? One could hope.

The point of his thread missed the mark. I did not ever take the critic (as in opposed to his claim) position. He completely missed my point when he created that thread.

I truly hope you engage the topic, though.

I'm glad you won't deny that Joseph and Brigham engaged in hot, steamy man-on-man sex, in many different positions. I'm glad that you don't dare deny the love that dare not speak its name. Let it be proclaimed far and wide! Joseph and Brigham were lovers, and consequences be damned! Stem shall not say a word against this divine truth!

[_just me]

What does "the church is true" mean stem?

Depends on whose saying it, I suppose. It seems most often to mean or suggest that the Church is that which was organized by Christ.

What do you think of criticism from the non-atheist crowd?

I don't' know. I think differently of different criticisms altogether. I take them one at a time and make up my mind on what I think of them. It doesn't matter from whence it comes for me.

What do these things mean in the context of this thread?

[_Buffalo]

I disagree with Shermer's logic presented in the OP, for the record.

Well then offer a response.

Proven false without a shadow of a doubt on many, many issues. But only one is required. The most obvious one that comes to mind is the presence of Deutero-Isaiah on the Brass Plates in the Book of Mormon narrative.

I'm not sure you are using proven or without a shadow of a doubt meaningfully. Please offer your ideas of what you mean when you say these things. This particular example seems like an enormous stretch in support of your claim--to say the least.

"But this is not the common usage, as we saw in the Oxford English Dictionary. (And we would do well to remember that dictionaries do not give definitions, they give usages.) Atheism is typically used to mean "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God" (not to mention its pejorative permutations). But "denial of a God" is an untenable position. it is no more possible to prove God's nonexistence than it is to prove His existence. "there is no God" is no more defensible than "there is a God." How We Believe : Science, Skepticism, and the search for God, Michael Shermer, 2nd Ed, pg 9.

Saying "there is no god" isn't quite the same as disbelief in God. But atheism is just disbelief. And atheist may well say that it's possible that there is god - there just isn't enough evidence to convince me that it's so.

Church leadership have long said that the church stands or falls on the Book of Mormon. Deutero-Isaiah on the brass plates has the same effect as would be Beatles lyrics on the brass plates - it's an anachronism so large and startling that it discredits the document completely.