How many posters on MD were once apologists?

[_Themis]

Science is a great example of the arm of flesh using a methodolgy to look at the world around them. It has proven itself to be the most reliable method we have.

But at times unreliable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded ... c_theories

http://listverse.com/2009/01/19/10-debu ... -the-past/

Arm of the flesh investigation is not always dependable and sacrosanct.

Regards,
MG

I never said it was always reliable, only that science has shown that it is far more reliable, especially compared to spiritual claims about the universe.

[_sock puppet]

I am not sure anyone on either side of the believing chasm can do so when addressing issues with those on the other side.

I do all the time.

Are you so egocentric to be so certain of that, of how you come across to those that do not share your point of view?

[_Milesius]

I don't know if my old MAD posts survived this last board overhaul, but I actually apostatized while actively participating there (inspired, embarrasingly enough, by my reading The God Delusion).

What was it about that pretentious pos' book made you leave Mormonism? As transparently fraudulent as Mormonism is, Dawkins is so completely inept that I doubt he could launch a viable argument against it.

[_Milesius]

Can you [i.e., Buffalo] ever discuss religion/spirituality without being condescending?

Buffalo is like school in summertime.

[_Milesius]

Easiest way to avoid answering a question is by answering with another question that may not have anything to do with the substance of the original question.

Deflection.

Comparing the creator of our universe with little fairies is a bit disingenuous and overly simplistic.

It's not a deflection. Please tell me how the available evidence for this "creator of the universe" exceeds the evidence for invisible fairies. If it doesn't, why should I take it seriously?

1. The modal ontological arguments of Charles Hartshorne and Kurt Gödel.

2. The argument from contingency.

3. This argument I borrowed from David Bartholomew.

Read those (or have them read to you.)

[_Daniel2]

While I would never presume to call myself "an apologist" (I was never that prestigious), my first forays onto the internet (on the then-FAIR boards) were as a devout member and defender of the LDS Faith.

Daniel2

[_keithb]

I fall into the camp of once being an "amateur apologist", if there is such a thing. I was active on the MADB message boards up through my disaffection from the church, and I still post there from time to time.

I think that my path away from the Mormon faith and a belief in God in general came mainly as a result of my scientific training. I learned things in my science classes about evolution, carbon dating, the age of the universe, etc. and none of those things seemed to fit at all into the Mormon perspective. While researching for more information on these topics, I eventually came across the page from Jeff Lindsay. That held my interest for a while, but then I started to notice deficiencies in his arguments, so I next found the MADB. I participated and read threads on that forum for 6-9 months, but I kept getting disappointed when threads about C-14 dating or Noah's Flood would come up and the LDS believers would essentially have to throw science under the bus to make their position tenable. I also started to see not much difference between LDS spirituality and that of any other faith out there.

Around this time in my life, I had a personal crisis which lead me to question everything in my life, including my belief in the existence of God. I next found the NOM forums and, finally, I found my way here. By the time I got here, I was already pretty much an atheist, but the threads on here helped to convince me that I hadn't missed anything on my way out.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG: I've been where you're at.

Themis: In what way?

Having an epiphany that the church was not true after years of reading, study and talking with others.

MG: Evidence of God? The Book of Mormon is a good place to start if you can stay within the covers and stay with the text itself. There is something inexplicably unique about that book. It is indeed the keystone to finding out whether the church is true, God lives, Jesus is the Christ, etc.

Themis: How so?

It either is or isn't what it purports to be. It all comes down to that.

Themis: Buffalo's point is valid and still unanswered on how your beliefs or claims are based on any evidence compared to other claims like fairies.

The Book of Mormon.

How do you think the Book of Mormon came to be? Can you provide solid evidence that demonstrates your belief to be true? No you can't. Then you discount the beliefs of those that do believe in the Book of Mormon through dismissal of evidences as being insupportable and declaring spiritual experiences as being unreliable across the board. An impasse is the result.

Here's the thing, Themis. Thomas Ferguson and many others along the way have lost their faith in the restoration because of similar issues as yours in regards to the Book of Mormon. They look at what proves/supports their disbelief while turning on blinders to those things which support belief. Years ago I began down that road in regards to the Book of Mormon when I read New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology. It was a long downhill slide from there. As I said above, it came to the point where I had what I felt to be an epiphany that the church was a scam. So I really do empathize with where you and others are at.

Now here I am, in a different place. The Book of Mormon has played an integral role/part all along in this roller coaster ride.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

Having an epiphany that the church was not true after years of reading, study and talking with others.

Sorry haven't been there. I based it on both the physical and spiritual evidence available.

It either is or isn't what it purports to be. It all comes down to that.

That does not answer the question.

The Book of Mormon.

How do you think the Book of Mormon came to be?

The evidence suggests an 19th century production.

Can you provide solid evidence that demonstrates your belief to be true? No you can't.

Of course I can. There is plenty, but I suspect you may want to play the absolute game as many defenders like to do when the facts do not support their beliefs.

Then you discount the beliefs of those that do believe in the Book of Mormon through dismissal of evidences as being insupportable and declaring spiritual experiences as being unreliable across the board. An impasse is the result.

I have yet to see how they are reliable, so they do not count as good evidence. Perhaps you could provide for how they are reliable. When it comes to members using what they think is the spirit for things we can look to see if they are getting realible information it comes up as unrealble. You are also forgetting as many defenders do that I did believe for decades based on what I believed at the time where divine communication.

Here's the thing, Themis. Thomas Ferguson and many others along the way have lost their faith in the restoration because of similar issues as yours in regards to the Book of Mormon. They look at what proves/supports their disbelief while turning on blinders to those things which support belief.

This is what you want to believe, but is very incorrect. Since we want to believe we are more inclined to give supporting evidence more wieght. That we have been unbiased enough to accept that it is just very little supporting evidence and so much against, that is what eventually changes understanding. Understanding that the spiritual is also not a realible source of objective truth is also a must as well.

Years ago I began down that road in regards to the Book of Mormon when I read New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology. It was a long downhill slide from there. As I said above, it came to the point where I had what I felt to be an epiphany that the church was a scam. So I really do empathize with where you and others are at.

Sorry missed that epiphany.

Now here I am, in a different place. The Book of Mormon has played an integral role/part all along in this roller coaster ride.

How specifically did you again concluded the church was true, if you are willing to answer.

[_Buffalo]

The statement "there is no god" very neatly takes care of all of them at once.

Anyway, in terms of evidence, what have you got?

Nothing that you have either heard of before, seen, or possibly experienced. The difference, I suppose, is that I've held on to God belief while you have scrapped it so that the "arm of flesh" evidence which you have compiled fits into your view of reality.

I've been where you're at.

For years I have been a fan of Krista Tippett and her public radio program called Speaking of Faith. Back in 2008 she had a fellow on her program named John Polkinghorne. This interview along with a book I'd read earlier called, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion impacted me to the extent that I started thinking more and more about the importance of the Book of Mormon in verifying the truth claims of the LDS church. The ongoing result being that a couple of months ago after listening to a podcast with John Dehlin where he interviewed Grant Hardy and his wife Heather I went out and bought the Reader's Edition of the Book of Mormon. At this point as I am going through this edition of the Book of Mormon I am finding the text coming to life in a way that for one reason or another it hadn't before.

Evidence of God? The Book of Mormon is a good place to start if you can stay within the covers and stay with the text itself. There is something inexplicably unique about that book. It is indeed the keystone to finding out whether the church is true, God lives, Jesus is the Christ, etc.

In todays world with all of the conflicting evidences that can move a person one way or the other, the Book of Mormon remains the bedrock "evidence" and Exhibit A that the LDS church is something special and unique in the world and has an important mission to carry out.


http://being.publicradio.org/programs/quarks/

http://www.amazon.com/Hand-Mormon-Ameri ... 195168887/

http://mormonstories.org/?p=1547

Regards,
MG

I'm not sure you understand what the word evidence means.