The Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2011

[_RayAgostini]

The only benefits of religion are emotional.

Really? Is that why Mormons and SDAs are the longest living?

[Guest]

Frankly, you need more rules. What you have here now isn't "free speech", it has become the freedom to slander character. I posted this on Facebook yesterday:

Australian News Commentary.

One of the ironies in quoting this is that the MDD folk and apologists have adopted their own form of politically correct speech in dealing with Mormonism. This is why we have defenders of the faith popping in here to decry our general bigotry. I don't consider myself bigoted against Mormonism in any way, but I am sure there are folks out there who will spuriously attempt to beat me into submission with such a charge.

But please note:

AJA Code of Ethics.

We are not journalists, but every one of those principles of ethical commentary could apply to us, if we are fair-minded.

What really happens here is anarchy, slander and character-assassination, and that's what you call "free speech".

I think the problem with your vision is that you are entering into a discussion that is clearly advocacy oriented and asking everyone not to advocate but report accurately. I don't see this happening. And I don't see that critics are any more to blame in this regard. Reading the inept postings of Simon Belmont or the sophistical nonsense and logorrhea of maklelan makes the primacy of advocacy over substance very clear. Apologists exist to deflect, minimize, and frustrate criticism of Mormonism, no matter how well founded that criticism may be. Critics exist to point out every possible fault in Mormonism to delegitimize it as a belief system, or, for others, in hopes that criticism might lead to reform. All these groups are fundamentally advocacy groups, not unlike the dreadful cable news networks in America, which represent the ideology of our Left and Right pretty faithfully.

[_sock puppet]

That's right, Kish. If MDB was reshaped into Ray's image for it, then there might be no more windmills for our El Don Quixote to slay.

I know you hate being challenged by brighter minds.

That's been obvious for a long time. You just love to "hold the floor", with the backing of your like minded mobs. Kill other opinions before they get a fair hearing. Brand them "unworthy of serious consideration". That's your "science".

Ray, you explained earlier in this thread your purpose here, until you die. It was not me. And as I think your perception of MDB is way off the mark, that is why I have made the Quixote analogy.

But, back to our regularly scheduled broadcast...where's the non-emotional evidence for Mormonism? I went to the site you linked and read it. I too think hope is an important human emotion. But sadly, no non-emotional evidence was to be had on that web page.

I'm sure you'll be able to scrounge up at least one shred of non-emotional evidence for Mormonism, right?

[_Kishkumen]

The only benefits of religion are emotional.

Even if that were true, which it is not, I don't think that is a bad thing.

[_RayAgostini]

Ray, you explained earlier in this thread your purpose here, until you die. It was not me. And as I think your perception of MDB is way off the mark, that is why I have made the Quixote analogy.

But, back to our regularly scheduled broadcast...where's the non-emotional evidence for Mormonism? I went to the site you linked and read it. I too think hope is an important human emotion. But sadly, no non-emotional evidence was to be had on that web page.

I'm sure you'll be able to scrounge up at least one shred of non-emotional evidence for Mormonism, right?

Man, you really are dense. Let me know when you finally figure it out.

ETA: Don't rush, you might have a brain hemorrhage.

[_Kishkumen]

But, back to our regularly scheduled broadcast...where's the non-emotional evidence for Mormonism? I went to the site you linked and read it. I too think hope is an important human emotion. But sadly, no non-emotional evidence was to be had on that web page.

I'm sure you'll be able to scrounge up at least one shred of non-emotional evidence for Mormonism, right?

We have had long discussions of about this very topic wherein critics admitted that there is some evidence, just not evidence sufficient to convince them. I don't think it is fair to say that there is "no evidence." The question is not whether there is any evidence, but whether the evidence is sufficient to support the argument. I feel comfortable saying that absent faith there is rarely if ever enough evidence to support most religious claims. The question, in my mind, is whether one chooses to live a life of faith or not.

[_RayAgostini]

I think the problem with your vision is that you are entering into a discussion that is clearly advocacy oriented and asking everyone not to advocate but report accurately. I don't see this happening. And I don't see that critics are any more to blame in this regard. Reading the inept postings of Simon Belmont or the sophistical nonsense and logorrhea of maklelan make the primacy of advocacy over substance very clear. Apologists exist to deflect, minimize, and frustrate criticism of Mormonism, no matter how well founded that criticism may be. Critics exist to point out every possible fault in Mormonism to delegitimize it as a belief system, or, for others, in hopes that criticism might lead to reform. All these groups are fundamentally advocacy groups, not unlike the dreadful cable news networks in America, which represent the ideology of our Left and Right pretty faithfully.

If you read the link I provided, you'll see that they are an "advocacy group", advocates for free speech and against "political correctness", and they suggest that Australian journalists in fact don't abide by the AJA Code of Conduct.

[_Kishkumen]

Man, you really are dense. Let me know when you finally figure it out.

ETA: Don't rush, you might have a brain hemorrhage.

Ray, for a guy advocating fairness, you really are indulging in a lot of pointless insult. I would guess that this is probably not the most effective means of getting your point across. Just my two cents.

[_Kishkumen]

If you read the link I provided, you'll see that they are an "advocacy group", advocates for free speech and against "political correctness", and they suggest that Australian journalists in fact don't abide by the AJA Code of Conduct.

Yeah, Ray, I got that. In other words, the pot continues to call the kettle black. "Hey, *you* should be more fair/impartial/objective." "No, *you* should."

Ad infinitum.

[_RayAgostini]

Ray, for a guy advocating fairness, you really are indulging in a lot of pointless insult. I would guess that this is probably not the most effective means of getting your point across. Just my two cents.

You're not exactly sinless, either, Kish, but I understand you're giving me this advice in good faith. Unlike most posters here, I'll try to be more "sensitive" in future. In other words, I'll have to break with the general board trend.

Just my three (Australian) cents, now worth about US$0.2 cents, or something in that range.