Ray A wrote:I think religion can potentially help one become more objective and therefore more scientific. The scientific method was developed based on the idea that God, being good, would make the universe observable and predictable. Furthermore, religion can help one control fear of the unknown, develop character and fill basic emotional needs, allowing one to think outside the box and avoid group-think.
DCP tried to defend that too:
DCP wrote:I'll answer eiguanteloko's CFR:
This is a pretty standard position in the historiography of science. But two quite good scholars to read on the point are Stanley Jaki and Pierre Duhem.
To wit, I said....
MistahStokes wrote:what
Duhem's Systeme is ten volumes, and his single minded critque of Aristotelian and Thomism isn't going to square easily with what Mordecai wrote.
I am trying to keep mfbukowski number one on here. I thought this was superb.
At least our answers are logical. We believe in a God who is smart enough to make his explanations to us simple enough for us with our pea-brains to understand.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
They refuse my computer any access to the MADhouse, if I sneak in it is overkill with everyone pulling out their guns on me like in the Blues Brothers movie. I remain the ONLY man capable or proving LDS apostasy on their own terms. You can tell them I said so.
Mostly just want to bump so Apocalrock is not prominent at the header. NTIBM
While this thread is focused on MAD gaffes, I’d like to depart from that for this post. Occasionally, an apologist actually says something that makes sense. (lightning strikes) (Drum rolls) (What?)
All that said, I hasten to point out again that I don't regard myself as an "evolutionist"--I merely think the best data should always be used, and have found those that critique the "modern synthesis" of evolution usually don't appear to know what they're talking about, or don't deal with the most robust cases. All I know about the evolution controversy for sure is that the evolutionary argument is never (or virtually never, but I have yet to encounter a counter-example) fairly represented if it is mentioned in a gospel context. This strikes me as A Very Bad thing, even if evolution is completely false--because, people eventually get to college or university and find that the straw-man that has been beaten up so handily in (say) Seminary class isn't the real deal.
I do think making sure that the discussion is actually framed in accurate terms is important--even (or especially) if we disagree with it. For only by really understanding the arguments will I (or we) recognize a good answer when one comes along, and only then will we see genuine flaws. It is better to clear out the false answer(s) and say "I don't know" than to keep the hoary old nonsense.
If one does not know that 2+3=5, that is unfortunate. It is even more unfortunate if one is convinced that it is 7, 8, or 5,301,302. One will make better decisions and judgments treating it as an unknown than as a "known" false value.
Apocalrock wrote:Selek commenting on his own state of affairs:
Yet sometimes obedience does not produce happiness. If "happiness" is the summit of your ethical peak, you cannot become Christ-like.
Selek is a prophet in his own mind...that is until the medicated drugs that he his force fed (by legal mandate) take effect and bring him back to reality.
I don't believe that the 11th Article of Faith is a prescription to ACT in any way we choose. The Catholic believe that when they take the Eucharist they are literally taking in the Christs body. The LDS think it is symbolic. They like we are entitled to believe what we please.
Translation of last sentence: Catholics, like Mormons, are entitled to believe what Mormons believe. HUNH???!!
Huckelberry said: I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.
Daniel Peterson wrote: In most cases, as things stand, I've thought that newspapers reader-comment sections could simply be abolished with no serious loss. Maybe these changes will restore value to them.
Censorship, anyone? This is the same guy who bid farewell to now ex-Mormon scholar David Wright. Apparently, he feels that Professor Wright's contributions to Mormon scholarship "could simply be abolished".
In the interest, of course, of "promoting the faith".
Daniel Peterson wrote: A small core of people who seem to have no jobs, no lives, and nothing to do all day post incessantly, sometimes scores of times each day, offering nothing more substantive than insults and expressions of contempt.
In most cases, as things stand, I've thought that newspapers reader-comment sections could simply be abolished with no serious loss. Maybe these changes will restore value to them.
DCP: 11,895 posts on MAD. The low post count is probably due to “academic vacations” from MBs due to “overseas trips”.
Calmoriah: 18,208 posts.
LoaP: 16,267 posts.
Do they have jobs? Lives? Nothing to do but “post incessantly”?