Recovery from MAD

[_harmony]

I guess I did! I wouldn't worry too much about what someone accuses you of on a board like this. I've been accused of being a Mormon sympathizer and vicious anti-Mormon all in the same day!

It was on Merc' free will thread. And then he made a trading card of Harmony, based on his own impressions, inaccurate though they are. I mean really... Me? with long blonde hair and perky boobs? Holy Moses!

[_Jersey Girl]

I guess I did! I wouldn't worry too much about what someone accuses you of on a board like this. I've been accused of being a Mormon sympathizer and vicious anti-Mormon all in the same day!

It was on Merc' free will thread. And then he made a trading card of Harmony, based on his own impressions, inaccurate though they are. I mean really... Me? with long blonde hair and perky boobs? Holy Moses!

Where is the trading card? I didn't see that. I went through some of the free will thread after looking at the first page of his recent posts.

Does the boy need his butt kicked?

[_Hoops]

[quote]

The Bible can be verified archeology quote]

So you would agree the the Bible has a leg up on the Book of Mormon? So to speak?

[_harmony]

I guess I did! I wouldn't worry too much about what someone accuses you of on a board like this. I've been accused of being a Mormon sympathizer and vicious anti-Mormon all in the same day!

It was on Merc' free will thread. And then he made a trading card of Harmony, based on his own impressions, inaccurate though they are. I mean really... Me? with long blonde hair and perky boobs? Holy Moses!

Where is the trading card? I didn't see that. I went through some of the free will thread after looking at the first page of his recent posts.

Does the boy need his butt kicked?

Scroll down to the trading card thread. I'm #1!

[_Jersey Girl]

]

Scroll down to the trading card thread. I'm #1!

Okay, I'll see if I can find it but I warn you...if I didn't get my own trading card I'm gonna flame somebody!

:-P

[Anonymous]

By creative thought, wishful thinking, and self-delusion. The exact same way the Jehovah's Witnesses keep themselves convinced that they're true and the LDS aren't, and the exact same way that the born-again Christians keep themselves convinced that they're true, the JWs and the LDS aren't, etc. LDS apologists aren't some new species here. They're just the LDS version of something which exists all over the world, for probably any religion.

But what of "sciegion"?

What of it? And what exactly is "sciegion" anyhow? I have to agree with Beastie that it's hilarious that when religionists really want to try to stick it to the atheists and make them look bad, they try to do it by labeling non-belief a religion.

Here's an interesting question. Let' suppose, for a moment here, that there really is no God. How should we human beings approach the aquisition and development of new understanding and knowledge of how this world, and this universe, and our species, and the rest of the ecology we live in, work? Can you imagine, if there is no God, that a better "science" ought to exist than the one that exists now? Science doesn't need God, and science would be science whether there were a God or not. God simply doesn't enter into it.

I do get frustrated by diehard religionists always trying to cloud the issue by labeling non-belief in God a religion, or science a religion, or whatever. Science is about developing and improving our understanding of how things in our world (and the rest of the universe) work by rational thought, good problem solving techniques, rigorous mathematics and other scientific discipline, and most importantly, evidence that we can observe, measure, and test in this real universe in which we live, and to apply some of the knowledge to the development of technologies that help improve our lot.

[_Sethbag]

The Bible can be verified archeology

So you would agree the the Bible has a leg up on the Book of Mormon? So to speak?

The Bible is at least verifiably ancient. That doesn't mean it's also "true" in the Mormonesque jargon meaning of that term.

The Book of Mormon is not ancient, nor true. So, in that sense, the Bible has "leg up" on the Book of Mormon, but I'm not convinced that really means much in terms of religious validity. So it's an ancient fictionalized account including some things that really happened, rather than a modern fictional account of things which almost certainly didn't happen. Both are, in their intended purposes, still fiction.

[_Scottie]

By creative thought, wishful thinking, and self-delusion. The exact same way the Jehovah's Witnesses keep themselves convinced that they're true and the LDS aren't, and the exact same way that the born-again Christians keep themselves convinced that they're true, the JWs and the LDS aren't, etc. LDS apologists aren't some new species here. They're just the LDS version of something which exists all over the world, for probably any religion.

But what of "sciegion"?

What of it? And what exactly is "sciegion" anyhow? I have to agree with Beastie that it's hilarious that when religionists really want to try to stick it to the atheists and make them look bad, they try to do it by labeling non-belief a religion.

Here's an interesting question. Let' suppose, for a moment here, that there really is no God. How should we human beings approach the aquisition and development of new understanding and knowledge of how this world, and this universe, and our species, and the rest of the ecology we live in, work? Can you imagine, if there is no God, that a better "science" ought to exist than the one that exists now? Science doesn't need God, and science would be science whether there were a God or not. God simply doesn't enter into it. I do get frustrated by diehard religionists always trying to cloud the issue by labeling non-belief in God a religion, or science a religion, or whatever. Science is about developing and improving our understanding of how things in our world (and the rest of the universe) work by rational thought, good problem solving techniques, rigorous mathematics and other scientific discipline, and most importantly, evidence that we can observe, measure, and test in this real universe in which we live, and to apply some of the knowledge to the development of technologies that help improve our lot.

See, you need to know how to play the game.

You don't label basic physics or math or geology as a "religion" because these have been tested and can be re-tested again and again and the results will always be the same. No "faith" is needed.

What you do is take the macro sciences, like global warming and the human body and archeology...you know, the ones so incredibly complex that old theories are constantly being challenged and changed by new evidence. THOSE require at least a basic "faith", since so little is known about them and there is so much room for error. These are what religionists jump on as "just another religion".

[_why me]

Maybe so. But it is here that we have the 'problem' with MAD. An apologist can only bat around the same ideas for a certain period of time before numbness of the brain cells begins to occur. At this moment, the MAD board is in a state of self-imposed calm. The past year has been a ping pong game with no winners or losers. A breather on the board is necessary.

I don't know. I've had a lot of fun on MAD since yesterday. Pahoran made perhaps the most inane defense of the Book of Mormon I have ever heard, and it's been fun watching him dig a deeper hole for himself.

I don't know because I haven't read it. It is not exactly easy to defend one's faith these days. Too much atheistic thought out there and atheists tend to write from their own version of truth. *THERE IS NO GOD* type of sentences, and relying on science to prove their point. For religionists, science plays a small part but Faith plays the major the role in decideing truth.

What do we know? We know that the Bible was written by individuals and the Book of Mormon was written by individuals. The rest is up to debate as to truth and god. If there is a god, this god will not allow either book to be proven true unless a second coming is at hand. Thus, religionists are behind an eightball since atheists tend to be sign seekers in regards to religion.

[_why me]

Unfortunately, the main reason, at this point, that you are being "punished" by them is due to your association here.

But then why aren't the punishing me, Doctor Steuss, or The Nehor?

Mok has been more vocal about being a supporter of this place than you, Steuss, or Nehor have. He has also had a longer association with Shades' board than any of you.

I suppose this does furnish evidence for my treason in a MAD way of thinking. However, it is nice to be lumped with Asbestosman, Steuss and The Nehor. I do suspect Liz's analysis of the situation is essentially correct.

I had hoped that by Dr. Peterson posting over here, that they would have been able to let go of their anger towards Mormon Discussions. I guess not. When I described MD as the wayward sister of MAD, the mods bristled at that comparison. Can you imagine a family in which one sister is a bit untamed and definitely slutty but essentially kind while the other sister is chaste in every way, but also neurotic and mean?

I don't think so. I am here and not punished. But what I do find interesting is the dual personalities of posters. One personality for MD and quite another for MAD. And here lies the problem. Posters loose their credibility when dual personality syndrome comes into the poster arena. I say: A poster needs just to be oneself and not two poster personalities.