The worst thing about Mormonism

[_beastie]

science IS the Daddy.

I love it when you talk dirty. ;)

[_dartagnan]

What difference does it make whether I know this person or not?

If you knew who she was you wouldn't have said my statement was wrong or biased. She is an atheist, so how do you explain the fact that she is able to accept this axiom just the same as any theist? It proves this wasn't something a sneaky theist tried to slide under the radar. You're an idiot who knows nothing about which you speak, so it explains why you were not aware of the manner in which these facts have been presented in the debate outside this forum.

How does it in any way influence the validity of what I wrote?

It undermines your ridiculous claim that my observation was biased. I said it because it is true, not because I am biased. Again, if atheists can accept this as truth, then you're not going to be able to claim it is just something a theist made up.

Do you consider every single person in the world's opinion on something before making an assessment for yourself?

No, but before I criticize something as "stupid" I would at least find out if it is true or not. But you never were one to research anything.

I just love this way you have of talking as though this MB is a stage where everyone observe s and draws the same conclusions as you do.

Yea, that made a lot of sense.

Are you really so ignorant as to think that what you think matters to anyone but yourself in any real, meaningful way? Go stroke yourself in private, please. I doubt anyone wants to watch you do it here.

I thought this was a discussion board. I like to discuss things. You don't. You like to pop in and go off at the lip and entertain yourself. I'm not the one trying to upstage others, you are.

Embarrass myself? To whom? You? Excuse me, but big f***ing deal.

You're an embarrassment to yourself. Unless you're one of the jerky boys.

The more you talk, the more you embarrass yourself to me. Do I think you care? I doubt it. Try to imagine how much you don't care multiplied by a billion and you'll start to get an idea approximating how much I care about your opinion.

I guess you're still upset because I said I rarely pay attention to you.

Such is life.

I'd like to see you quote me where I said science didn't have limitations.

I'd like to see you quote me where I said you said science didn't have limitations.

But where science is limited, religion and philosophy do little to nothing to fill those gaps.

Truth by assertion. Your biased attitude towards religion precludes you from making any informed judgment on this matter.

Just like you can't prove any other negative... so what?

So what? Well, too many atheists are preteidng religion has been discredited by science. The fact is science owes a great deal to religious minds.

LOL... OMG, talk about embarrassing! And you want people to take you seriously?

Apparently, chap already has. But I guess that's the difference between reasonable, intelligent critics, and babbling amateurs.

Mormons "knew" that, did they? Like the "know" the church is true?

No. Again, one religious claim verified doesn't mean all religious claims are verified anymore than one scientific claim verified means all scientific claims are verified.

Again, belief does not equal knowledge.

I never said belief equals knowledge, but the two are not mutually exclusive either. People can uphold beliefs that are in fact true. That makes it knowedge independent of the scientific method.

Try looking up those two words and understanding what they actually mean before posting again and embarrassing yourself in front of the audience of this grand stage on which we find ourselves.

Antishock already screwed the pooch on that one. Knowledge and belief are not opposites. Knowledge is simply the perception of fact or truth and can also be defined as a familiarity gained via experience.

There is nothing about the meaning of knowledge that says it has to be knowledge of scientific fact.

You, antishock and others have abused this distinction for far too long, pretending it actually does something for the anti-religion argument.

It doesn't.

And why is it considered a fact today? Because of science, not religion.

It is considered a scientific fact today, but it was considered truth before science. Not all truths are scientific. In fact the purpose of science it to discover more truths that are still unknown. So they exists as facts/truths before they become scientific.

[_Some Schmo]

The scientific method IS a philosophy. It owes its development and refinement to serious philosophical thought.
...so to praise science and yet bash philosophy is a bit like biting the hand that feeds you.
I'd say solid philosophy forms the basis of any critical thought.

I'm not bashing philosophy. I'm just saying it's not a reliable way to arrive at the truth, in and of itself.

And there's a difference between the idea of science (or philosophy of science) and the implementation of science, just like there's a difference between the blueprints for a hammer and the act of hammering. I won't be driving too many nails home with that hammer blueprint.

I said something about this in another thread, and I'll paraphrase here: Things like inspiration, intuition, feelings, etc can be the starting point for arriving at truth, but they never supply the final word. A large body of evidence has to back up the ideas before they are considered truth.

I mean, why don't we just chuck people in jail on a suspicion, even if they really are guilty? (darte would call this "knowing they're guilty" apparently, so I suppose he'd be all for it.) We don't consider them truly guilty until we look at as much evidence as we can that points to the person's guilt and away from their innocence. Due process, and all that.

Golly gee, I wonder why evidence is important before making an assessment of truth...

[_Ren]

I love it when you talk dirty. ;)

Woah. I was talking out loud then wasn't I! Heh :)

[_dartagnan]

LMAO... alrighty then. I'm curious as to how many would agree with your statement; that is, among people with at least a rudimentary understanding of the English language, of course.

So you piss on the dictionary and appeal to popular vote? That's telling.

You guys simply don't understand the meanings of the words you are clasping onto. I just provided a pretty authoritative source of the English vocabulary. Now it is up to you to rebut with somethinng equally authoritative. But you can't. So now you're pissed about it.

So what else is new?

What you call knowledge, others generally refer to as an idea, theory, hypothesis, concept, suspicion, or some other similar word, and it's only when the idea is backed up with a large body of evidence does it move to the category of knowledge.

Again, you're not naming any sources. You're just apealing to a mysterious crowd of "others." And this is the best you can come up with?

Figures.

So the fact that you make all kind of claims about your "knowledge" should let people know that what you really are talking about are your ideas, theories, hypotheses, concepts, and suspicions.

No, this is only true if we begin with the unproved premise that "knowledge" can only come from the scientific method. The fact is the definition of belief and knowledge doesn't serve the anti-religion agenda, no matter how much you wish otherwise. Belief isn't strictly religious anymore than knowledge is strictly scientific.

[_Some Schmo]

Oooo... dart's getting all hot, bothered and insulting again.

Where's a good therapist when he needs one?

Again, we've reached the stage of the discussion where darte goes off on some idiotic tangent trying to cover his ass from all the idiotic statements he made, and I can't be bothered to correct him. Some morons just aren't worth it, and darte's right up there.

I lied before. You really are a moron.

[_Ren]

Some Schmo,

We probably don't really disagree here -just emphasising different things I guess.
Philosophy can't do what science does. Science doesn't trust 'mind excersises' on their own. Reality has to 'kick back at us' -that is a solid requirement to account for scientific truth. I just see philosophy as covering not only 'how' to do good science, but other intellectual areas - and it's an important discipline.

[_Coggins7]

I'm not bashing philosophy. I'm just saying it's not a reliable way to arrive at the truth, in and of itself.

The truth regarding what?

[_Some Schmo]

Some Schmo,

We probably don't really disagree here -just emphasising different things I guess.
Philosophy can't do what science does. Science doesn't trust 'mind excersises' on their own. Reality has to 'kick back at us' -that is a solid requirement to account for scientific truth. I just see philosophy as covering not only 'how' to do good science, but other intellectual areas - and it's an important discipline.

Yes, we do agree. I don't have anything against philosophy at all, as a subject of study. I just wouldn't use it to arrive at the truth any more than I'd use a boat to drive down the road. That's nothing against boats. I just prefer using the right tool for the job.

[_Coggins7]

Not defending coggins, because he is an idiot,

You see, the song remains the same, regardless of the issue. KG treats anti-Mormons the same way he treats pro-Mormons.

KG is like a fish flopping around on the dock, gasping for air, making swimming motions with its body, as if unaware its been taken out of its element. I don't really think KG knows what he really believes anymore.

Apostasy, and the rape of the conscience that can attend it when one knows what one is doing, can produce this kind of pseudo psychosis.