Mormon apologists are necessarily cranks

[_mikwut]

Hi Buffalo,

It seems more in line with exactly what your definition of a crank is, dismissing any and all evidence or arguments. Your also again missing nuance, your making a statement that requires words such as "compelling" or "overwhelming", or "forced" before it is meaningful, they are missing adjectives prior to your use of "evidence". For example, the empty tomb is indeed, unquestionably and without reservation "evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus. Is it so compelling evidence or overwhelming as to force a party to accept the Christian interpretation of that evidence? No, but does that mean the same thing as, "I'm not aware of any evidence at odds with atheism" no it clearly meets your burden as you stated it - that is, evidence that "is at odds with atheism" - your dismissal of it notwithstanding. There are many more examples of this.

You "crank"! ;)

my regards,

[_jon]

Hi Buffalo,

It seems more in line with exactly what your definition of a crank is, dismissing any and all evidence or arguments. Your also again missing nuance, your making a statement that requires words such as "compelling" or "overwhelming", or "forced" before it is meaningful, they are missing adjectives prior to your use of "evidence". For example, the empty tomb is indeed, unquestionably and without reservation "evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus. Is it so compelling evidence or overwhelming as to force a party to accept the Christian interpretation of that evidence? No, but does that mean the same thing as, "I'm not aware of any evidence at odds with atheism" no it clearly meets your burden as you stated it - that is, evidence that "is at odds with atheism" - your dismissal of it notwithstanding. There are many more examples of this.

You "crank"! ;)

my regards,

The empty tomb isn't direct evidence of the resurrection, unless you were there and saw it for yourself. What you are relying on is the writings of someone who heard about the story about the tomb Jesus was in being found empty. You're reliant on an individuals version of the event and how that has been passed down, as evidence of the resurrection.
(and that person may or may not have been a 'crank'...)

[_mikwut]

Jon,

I didn't say it was "direct" in the manner of I saw it, obviously. I said, "evidence" which it indeed is - given the New Testament witnesses of it. How weak or strong that evidence is is irrelevant to my point, it remains "evidence". That's a fairly reasonable and simple point I'm making.

my regards, mikwut

[_Buffalo]

Hi Buffalo,

It seems more in line with exactly what your definition of a crank is, dismissing any and all evidence or arguments. Your also again missing nuance, your making a statement that requires words such as "compelling" or "overwhelming", or "forced" before it is meaningful, they are missing adjectives prior to your use of "evidence". For example, the empty tomb is indeed, unquestionably and without reservation "evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus. Is it so compelling evidence or overwhelming as to force a party to accept the Christian interpretation of that evidence? No, but does that mean the same thing as, "I'm not aware of any evidence at odds with atheism" no it clearly meets your burden as you stated it - that is, evidence that "is at odds with atheism" - your dismissal of it notwithstanding. There are many more examples of this.

You "crank"! ;)

my regards,

Is this a long-winded way of saying that you're unable to provide the requested evidence?

As far as the empty tomb goes, which tomb would that be? Where is it? Where is your evidence?

[_mikwut]

Buffalo,

For clarification and so you don't miss my point, let me say Atheism is reasonable. It is intellectually challenging and thrilling - it is hardly boring and hardly lacking in existential candor and depth. Atheism is possible, there does not exist a rational irrefutable argument against the possibility of atheism. Nihilism is reasonable, intellectually challenging and thrilling, nihilism is possible and there does not exist a rational irrefutable argument against the possibility of nihilism. Theism is intellectually challenging and thrilling, theism is possible, there does not exist a rational irrefutable argument against the possibility of theism. That is our human condition, that is our epistemological condition and is where we find ourselves. That is the point I am making. Within that fact of reality - it is rather easy for either side to distort that epistemologically uncertain reality the way your OP does.

The common arguments for the resurrection of Jesus are found quite easily. I could have offered many of the theistic arguments for God from either a natural and positive apologetic or a negative one such as Simone Weil. I could have provided many arguments that show the intellectual dissatisfaction many thoughtful people have toward atheism. My point isn't to state a piece of evidence and for you to dismiss it, we already know that about your position. We already know there is "evidence" for theism. What your doing now makes my point while trying to dismiss my point.

Your response to my initial post is no different than me insisting from you why atheism is correct; and believe me I can dismiss all the arguments you can produce as well.

my regards, mikwut

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo,

For clarification and so you don't miss my point, let me say Atheism is reasonable. It is intellectually challenging and thrilling - it is hardly boring and hardly lacking in existential candor and depth. Atheism is possible, there does not exist a rational irrefutable argument against the possibility of atheism. Nihilism is reasonable, intellectually challenging and thrilling, nihilism is possible and there does not exist a rational irrefutable argument against the possibility of nihilism. Theism is intellectually challenging and thrilling, theism is possible, there does not exist a rational irrefutable argument against the possibility of theism. That is our human condition, that is our epistemological condition and is where we find ourselves. That is the point I am making. Within that fact of reality - it is rather easy for either side to distort that epistemologically uncertain reality the way your OP does.

The common arguments for the resurrection of Jesus are found quite easily. I could have offered many of the theistic arguments for God from either a natural and positive apologetic or a negative one such as Simone Weil. I could have provided many arguments that show the intellectual dissatisfaction many thoughtful people have toward atheism. My point isn't to state a piece of evidence and for you to dismiss it, we already know that about your position. We already know there is "evidence" for theism. What your doing now makes my point while trying to dismiss my point.

Your response to my initial post is no different than me insisting from you why atheism is correct; and believe me I can dismiss all the arguments you can produce as well.

my regards, mikwut

What you're missing here is that atheism isn't a theory - it's a philosophical position. Mormonism isn't a theory either. But, in defense of Mormonism, apologists come up with all sorts of crackpot theories. Get it now?

[_Tarski]

So, Bufflao, inquiring minds also want to know, do you want to believe in atheism?

Believe in atheism? That has a funny ring to it.
Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Daniel, the question we all want to know is, do you want to believe?

Not particularly. I'm certainly open to the idea that certain participants on this board are space aliens, and that this is a photo of the craft on which they arrived, but I remain unconvinced, and I think other explanations for their behavior are intuitively more likely.

[_Simon Belmont]

Believe in atheism? That has a funny ring to it.
Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

This is used quite often, but usually in the form of "not playing football is not a sport."

But the truth is, atheism is a system, and it can be quite dogmatic.

[_Buffalo]

Daniel, the question we all want to know is, do you want to believe?

Not particularly. I'm certainly open to the idea that certain participants on this board are space aliens, and that this is a photo of the craft on which they arrived, but I remain unconvinced, and I think other explanations for their behavior are intuitively more likely.

Have you done that radical right wing Fox News speaking gig yet? There might be some good candidates there.