Molok wrote:Apparently Stem feels like he is the only one entitled to blather on endlessly about whatever half formed abortion of a thought that enters his "mind"
That is not true. I welcome all people's comments, even if they feel so obliged to complain about me instead of discussing ideas and issues. I just hope the one's who complain about me, like you, decide to take a different route for your own benefit. If you do not want to take my advice no skin off my nose. I still wish you the best in all of your endeavors. Peace to you.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Molok wrote:Apparently Stem feels like he is the only one entitled to blather on endlessly about whatever half formed abortion of a thought that enters his "mind"
That is not true. I welcome all people's comments, even if they feel so obliged to complain about me instead of discussing ideas and issues. I just hope the one's who complain about me, like you, decide to take a different route for your own benefit. If you do not want to take my advice no skin off my nose. I still wish you the best in all of your endeavors. Peace to you.
Well obviously if you're so worried about my well being, you should delete your account and never come back, so I won't have someone to stress over.
Molok wrote:Well obviously if you're so worried about my well being, you should delete your account and never come back, so I won't have someone to stress over.
If you stress because of little old me I'd imagine your problems are far worse than my existence. I mean that seriously. We all should be able to cope with opposing views without having to stress that others are out there that disagree with us, aren't as smart as us or are plain backwards (which is probably the way you'd describe me, it seems). I could leave but I'd wager someone else will stress you out.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
"But this is not the common usage, as we saw in the Oxford English Dictionary. (And we would do well to remember that dictionaries do not give definitions, they give usages.) Atheism is typically used to mean "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God" (not to mention its pejorative permutations). But "denial of a God" is an untenable position. it is no more possible to prove God's nonexistence than it is to prove His existence. "there is no God" is no more defensible than "there is a God." How We Believe : Science, Skepticism, and the search for God, Michael Shermer, 2nd Ed, pg 9.
He puts it in a way that I find most compelling. If you assume the atheist position you assume the burden to prove it. The funny thing in all of this, or mixed up thing if you prefer, is that atheists typically don't believe because they find the notion of belief untenable. Belief in God is untenable therefore I see no reason to believe but the mistake is to make a claim of one's own--that there is no God. As Shermer suggests one cannot disprove the existence of God just as one can't prove such existence. The position of atheism is untenable, but the atheist typically surrenders to that position because he/she finds belief untenable. What a weird position to find oneself in, I'd say. The out for believers is the reason for belief is in faith (meaning the experiences they consider spiritual provide reason to believe), but for atheists they are stuck having to rely on verifyable scientific methods and reasoning to prove his/her position, which is impossible to do. So what we're left with is two untenable positions, one, ultimately with an out, the other filled with hypocrisy, it seems.
This is quite like unto the whining exhibited here regarding LDS folks and LDS defenders. The complaint here is that the LDS defender is merely critiquing a critique of an LDS position, and therefore the LDS defender isn’t supporting his/her position—the positive claims of the Church. And yet, the original critique offered of LDS belief is untenable, as reasoned by the LDS defender. The critics position is untenable, while claiming LDS belief can’t be right because its untenable.
There ya are folks—the very problem you guys have created and have been unwilling and/or unwilling to see or accept.
This make's Darth J's thread about Joseph's romantic encounters with Brigham all the more poignant. The point seemed to fly over your head at the time. Perhaps it makes more sense to you now? One could hope.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Molok wrote:Well obviously if you're so worried about my well being, you should delete your account and never come back, so I won't have someone to stress over.
If you stress because of little old me I'd imagine your problems are far worse than my existence. I mean that seriously. We all should be able to cope with opposing views without having to stress that others are out there that disagree with us, aren't as smart as us or are plain backwards (which is probably the way you'd describe me, it seems). I could leave but I'd wager someone else will stress you out.
I was humoring you, moron. I want you to leave because you do nothing but attempt to pester and annoy critics of your cult.
stemelbow wrote:You and Shermer both. But, ironically, you still find yourself in the "critic" camp claiming the Church is not true, rather than a more agnostic position of "the Church could be true but I personally doubt it", or so it seems.
The LDS church, unlike an unspecific notion of god, has been proven false without a shadow of a doubt.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:This make's Darth J's thread about Joseph's romantic encounters with Brigham all the more poignant. The point seemed to fly over your head at the time. Perhaps it makes more sense to you now? One could hope.
The point of his thread missed the mark. I did not ever take the critic (as in opposed to his claim) position. He completely missed my point when he created that thread.
I truly hope you engage the topic, though.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Molok wrote:I was humoring you, moron. I want you to leave because you do nothing but attempt to pester and annoy critics of your cult.
Fine. If I don't' leave I suppose we'll all be subjected to your hostility. If I do leave everyone will probably still be subjected to it. I don't' see a win in any of this.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Molok wrote:I was humoring you, moron. I want you to leave because you do nothing but attempt to pester and annoy critics of your cult.
Fine. If I don't' leave I suppose we'll all be subjected to your hostility. If I do leave everyone will probably still be subjected to it. I don't' see a win in any of this.
Nobody is subject to my "hostility" except you. This is because you're an obvious troll. Stop trying to drag other people into this. I've already outlined what I would consider a "win."
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Buffalo wrote:The LDS church, unlike an unspecific notion of god, has been proven false without a shadow of a doubt.
I'd like to see proof of this, atheist. I laugh because here you admit that your one position is untenable but then another is tenable. Anyway, perhaps you should start by defining exactly what you mean by "proven false without a shadow of a doubt". Whose doubt, or non-doubt? And what do you mean by "proven"?
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.