.

[Ed1]

.

[malkie]

I am busy. Have a good day.

Ah, so, the truth comes out. He refuses to adhere to the excercise. Why, one may ask?

Those that truly wish to participate, I expect an in depth analysis of the constraints I have put forth on their own terms. And I demand that you be through.

Jumping in a bit late here, but here goes. I truly wish to participate.

I'm through.

It kind of limits my further participation, or ability to perform an in depth analysis of the constraints, but you must admit I have met your demand.

[Ed1]

.

[Dr. Shades]

If you agree with me that you can't use science the way YOU do, and admit my point in the OP, why do you care about whether I care about sceintology?

Because I want to determine whether you yourself believe the words you wrote in the opening post.

I don't BELIEVE in scientology, and neither do you, yet it is I that haven't tried to falsify scientology with science.

I don't care whether you have tried to falsify Scientology with science. I simply asked you WHY you don't believe in it, and what method you use to justify your disbelief. Why are you so mightily dodging this question?

I have tried to do research on the Book of Abraham, and to validate its reasonability within the realm where it is found.

As Scientologists do with Scientology. All religions are reasonable within the realm that they are found, so what's the point of sending out missionaries? Please answer that last question.

I have not committed that sin of rationalsim or lack thereof. Therefore, I have had clarity of rationality, and you people have not. I have never been pseudoscientific, and have had a rational basis this whole time, . . .

Doesn't the last part of your sentence fragment contradict the first part of it?

but you have been not only pseudoscientific, but have been very irrational and pseudoscientific and dishonest in overblowing the basis for your rejection of Mormonism and the proof you think you have against it. Thanks.

This isn't about us; it's about you. Please answer the questions asked of you. You provided the opening post, now defend it.

[Ed1]

.

[Marcus]

Apparently Ed is unwilling to engage me, even though I accepted his starting assumptions and then evaluated his model in that context, exactly as he asked.

When you decide to analyze my primary constraints for consistency and rationality, then we will have made progress. This you have not done.

What do you mean by "analyze [your] primary constraints for consistency and rationality"? that's not what you asked for in your OP. it sounds pretty nonsensical at the moment, and nothing like your original request. Adding nonsense terms like this after the fact seems like you are just trying to evade my analysis. Please explain what you mean.

[Ed1]

.

[Marcus]

What do you mean by "analyze [your] primary constraints for consistency and rationality"? that's not what you asked for in your OP. it sounds pretty nonsensical at the moment, and nothing like your original request. Adding nonsense terms like this after the fact seems like you are just trying to evade my analysis. Please explain what you mean.

Yep. Done with you. buh bye

No surprise there.I actually complied with the OP's conditions and presented my analysis, only to be hit with this cockamamie "analyze my primary constraints for consistency and rationality". And when I ask for clarification, there is only the cowardly "done with you."

What this tells me is that the OP was not prepared for someone to comply with his conditions and do an analysis. What a coward you are, OP. Do you realize that your ideas are meaningless if you deflect even the slightest evaluation in the dishonest manner you've used here?

[Moksha]

For example, a Mormon Scientist can do science without doing religion, and his conclusions, when kept scientific, without allowing his religion to enter, keeping science in the box it is supposed to operate in, he can reason only within that realm, and come up with appropriate conclusions where his religion doesn't enter in, and produce peer-reviewed papers without his religion bleeding in.

Ed, you've seen the failure to maintain a scientific rigor of thought in the case of the Book of Abraham by LDS members. It is like Trekkies trading the diagram specifications for Warp Nacelles. Whatever Gene Roddenberry speculated must be defended at all costs, even if it means breaking the laws of known physics. Makes you want to throw Shulem, Shirts, and Vogel into the airlock.

[doubtingthomas]

Because I find John Dehlin's explanation that the Spirit is a mere psychological phenomenon and a mere product of feel goodness and emotion unpersuasive

There are other possibilities. Sam Harris talks about the possibility of all matter being conscious. God isn't the only explanation.

because of my own long experience with it, after my almost 5 decades of life, to know that there is an intelligence behind it that is not me

You can't underestimate cognitive biases. Jeff Meldrum is a professor of anatomy & anthropology who specializes in foot morphology and locomotion in primates. The guy still believes in Bigfoot and the Book of Mormon after decades of doing extensive research. Meldrum thinks the evidence for Bigfoot is compelling.

And if there is a supernatural intelligence behind your personal experiences; how would you know the supernatural intelligence isn't trolling you? God could be the Analyst from Matrix 4. Why would you give 10% of your income to a religion worth billions of dollars?

Don't tell me that you people don't believe in magic, when you use magic to say nothing else exists.

I don't know! The best position to take is agnosticism. Wouldn't you agree?

I am a Transhumanist.

There you go! See. You don't need Mormonism to believe in the possibility of becoming a god.

What is the position of the church on child marriage? In some countries children are allowed to get married in LDS chapels. The church doesn't care about ending child marriage.

Mormonism is naturally transhumanist, because only Transhumanism is reasonable.

It is good philosophy, but it doesn't change the fact that most Mormons are against abortion and stem cell research. Poor mental health is very common among LDS members in developing countries.