Does it take more faith to stay, or to go?

[_Buffalo]

Put the Bible billyclub away there bot boy.

Why? I mean if you call angels and gold plates and seer stones "stupid," then how is that any different than dew-soaked lambskins to tell the future; floating axe-heads; pillars of fire and smoke to lead people around; the resurrection; the virgin birth?

The Bible is an appropriate frame of reference against which to judge the outrageous claims of Joseph Smith. His claims are rather in keeping with Biblical tradition.

Now, if you think the Bible is all nonsense and there is no room for stuff like the virgin birth and lepers being healed at a distance, or angels stirring waters to heal people, then my response to you is obvious. Why bother even being here? Why do you demand Mormons defend their theosophonies when you can't even admit to any such thing?

Good call. It's all pretty ridiculous and you'd have to be a credulous, superstitious yokel to believe any of it.

How does that forward your viewpoint, though?

[_Some Schmo]

Good call. It's all pretty ridiculous and you'd have to be a credulous, superstitious yokel to believe any of it.

How does that forward your viewpoint, though?

You've got to love the "all religious beliefs are stupid" argument.

Can you imagine this yahoo as your lawyer?

"Well judge, is murder any worse than cheating on your taxes, shooting heroin or picking up a hooker? I mean, we all do it. What are we even doing here?"

Being a lawyer is one thing, but a bad lawyer? *shudder*

[_Buffalo]

Good call. It's all pretty ridiculous and you'd have to be a credulous, superstitious yokel to believe any of it.

How does that forward your viewpoint, though?

You've got to love the "all religious beliefs are stupid" argument.

Can you imagine this yahoo as your lawyer?

"Well judge, is murder any worse than cheating on your taxes, shooting heroin or picking up a hooker? I mean, we all do it. What are we even doing here?"

Being a lawyer is one thing, but a bad lawyer? *shudder*

I love it every time it comes up. It just goes to show that Mopologists still aren't equipped to cope with secular criticism.

[_Yahoo Bot]

So ya think, huh?

Takes a lot of courage, don't it, to claim to be an active, temple-going Mormon and come here anonymously to defame true believers with real names?

[_Buffalo]

So ya think, huh?

Takes a lot of courage, don't it, to claim to be an active, temple-going Mormon and come here anonymously to defame true believers with real names?

I'm looking for some sort of argument here, but I can't find one. Let me know when you find the ability to debate rather than just sling mud.

[_Chap]

Finally, as a post-script to the above, please permit me to get on my hobby horse again. What value are your anonymous rants and personal attacks? Should we really credit them? Aren't the more credible arguments made by people with real names and positions in life?

Some of us go out of our way to avoid posting any argument that does not stand quite independently of our personal testimony, in virtue of its internal logic and the evidence from reliable external sources that it references.

That way, the argument would be neither more not less valid if it had been posted by Mickey Mouse, or even Droopy. It's a good mental discipline.

Nope. It is still weak. The internet blog -- the refuge of the anonymite.

How about this argument (for which I do not claim originality ...)

Prime numbers are more than any assigned multitude of prime numbers.

Let A, B, and C be the assigned prime numbers.

I say that there are more prime numbers than A, B, and C.
Take the least number DE measured by A, B, and C. Add the unit DF to DE.

Then EF is either prime or not.

First, let it be prime. Then the prime numbers A, B, C, and EF have been found which are more than A, B, and C.

Next, let EF not be prime. Therefore it is measured by some prime number. Let it be measured by the prime number G.

I say that G is not the same with any of the numbers A, B, and C.

If possible, let it be so.

Now A, B, and C measure DE, therefore G also measures DE. But it also measures EF. Therefore G, being a number, measures the remainder, the unit DF, which is absurd.

Therefore G is not the same with any one of the numbers A, B, and C. And by hypothesis it is prime. Therefore the prime numbers A, B, C, and G have been found which are more than the assigned multitude of A, B, and C.

Therefore, prime numbers are more than any assigned multitude of prime numbers.

I can't see any way in which such an argument is made less forceful by my anonymity, can you?

(And, by the way, is a bare assertion decorated with epithets likely to be recognized as a valid argument in any court where you practice? I'd be surprised; but that is all you offer in your reply above.)

[_Yahoo Bot]

You just continue to hold to the belief that there is nothing wrong with anonymous argument about religion and attacks on people with real names. You're in good company here, very good company.

[_Buffalo]

You just continue to hold to the belief that there is nothing wrong with anonymous argument about religion and attacks on people with real names. You're in good company here, very good company.

You continue to hold the belief that there's nothing wrong with being a whiny baby who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag. You continue to hold the belief that anyone cares about how brave you think you are for having mentioned your real name at some point. You continue to ignore the fact that most people post anonymously on all sorts of forums, and that it's common sense to do so. You continue to hold the belief that there's something wrong with people displaying more common sense than you do.

[_Themis]

You just continue to hold to the belief that there is nothing wrong with anonymous argument about religion and attacks on people with real names. You're in good company here, very good company.

You continue to hold the belief that there's nothing wrong with being a whiny baby who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag. You continue to hold the belief that anyone cares about how brave you think you are for having mentioned your real name at some point. You continue to ignore the fact that most people post anonymously on all sorts of forums, and that it's common sense to do so. You continue to hold the belief that there's something wrong with people displaying more common sense than you do.

Bob is just trolling.

[_jon]

I wonder who Yahoo is billing for the time he spends posting...?