"don't embarrass yourself by asking about metallurgy..."

[_Tobin]

No, they were just wrong in my opinion and I attributed it to superstition, tradition and so on.

Fascinating. And yet whenever you argue with atheists on this board, you set up the false dichotomy that the only possible positions are to either accept that God exists or else believe that the vast majority of the planet is deluded or insane.

I, for one, am tired of being a ridiculous atheist whose positions are utterly bonkers, absurd, laughable, etc. I just want to be a reasonable atheist like you used to be. Can you show me how? Or did atheism cease to be reasonable the moment you abandoned it?

When I was an atheist, I maintained there was no evidence of God, so I didn't believe in a God, gods, or the tooth fairy. If people wished to believe for whatever reason, that was up to them. I wasn't going to waste my time on it since there are much more interesting things to do and talk about.

The fact atheists engage in forum like this as an atheist perplexes me. If they really don't believe in God, why discuss it? It can easily be discounted for a number of reasons and the claims are patently absurd. People don't see God, angels, and have gold books land in their lap. So when atheists wish to wander down the rabbit hole of belief, scriptures, and so on I have to wonder are they really atheists at all? What evidence, short of God showing up, would ever be sufficient for an atheist? So that is why I tell them to seek God, see him, and speak with him instead.

[_Themis]

You just did. You just stated that in the quote below. Can't you remember what you said just before this post?

Interesting that I never implied that I expected you to be perfect, but yet you interpreted my bringing up an area of weakness means I expect you to be perfect. Working on reading comprehension would help, but I expect you do this more to distract from the other issues you are having trouble with.

Not really. Alfredo's question was him playing ignorant (for fun I suspect) of the scriptures and what others have said on the topic. I wasn't going to play with him and kept ignoring his questions because the premise was frankly stupid.

I know what you think of the question just as I know you missed what he was really getting at.

You are sadly deluded about what the prophets teach and the scriptures. They all invite you to seek, see, and speak with the Lord.

Yet I never suggested they and other prophets didn't. Again you miss the point.

And you have yet to point out a problem with how I've described what actually happened with the papyrus. The only inconsistency is in your head.

The inconsistency here is that on other issues you argue that God wants to make sure and correct things that are wrong, but on this one you don't.

You are blatantly ignorant of how Joseph Smith was shown things (it was a painstaking process requiring concentration on his part) and make absurd assertions about how God had to correct Joseph Smith on such and such when it is clear Joseph Smith's understanding was constantly evolving and he often had mistaken impressions and had to learn and correct things over time as his understanding improved.

Why don't we stick with the facts instead of your assertions here you don't really know. You are making up in your head what you think Joseph was doing yet don't provide any sources to back it up and attack those who do.

[_Chap]

Nice to know atheists are not all bonkers. We may even hear eventually that they are not all damned either (except those who tease Tobin, of course).



Now however atheists are perplexing if they are still interested in theism.

Well, here is one way it may work. If the existence of a deity is unquestioningly absorbed at an early stage of life, it may not even seem to be a reasonable question to ask why many people believe in whatever deity is favored in the local culture. I mean, he/she/it is just ... there ... like the sky or the earth. What's to discuss?

But once one takes the red pill (as atheists see it), and comes to a state of mind where it finally seems blindingly un-obvious why anyone should feel justified in affirming (as so many do) the existence of their particular deity, then for anyone interested in the way his or her fellow human beings think and live, the question of why they should hold to such a strange belief as a basic part of their lives becomes quite fascinating.

And let us recall that very very few of them ever claim the kind of theophanic experience that Tobin claims as the basis of his belief. So what is religious belief as practiced by 99% of religious believers based on? A lot of very different and often quite contradictory things, if this and other boards tell us anything. That is one reason why it is interesting.

[_Sophocles]

When I was an atheist, I maintained there was no evidence of God, so I didn't believe in a God, gods, or the tooth fairy. If people wished to believe for whatever reason, that was up to them. I wasn't going to waste my time on it since there are much more interesting things to do and talk about.

So, as an atheist, life was far too interesting to waste time arguing with believers. But as a believer, you don't have much better to do than argue with atheists. Where do I sign up?

So when atheists wish to wander down the rabbit hole of belief, scriptures, and so on I have to wonder are they really atheists at all?

I'm kind of wondering the same thing about you. Supposedly you were an atheist who was much to interested in living life to bother with something as mundane as discussing religion, and yet when you suddenly experience something unusual and seemingly supernatural, you immediately interpret it through a very specific religious paradigm. You claim other possible interpretations are laughable, as if even atheists know that Satan is not more powerful than God, for example. In my experience, real atheists (especially ones who are busy doing more interesting things than caring about religion) don't automatically know the relative strengths and weaknesses of imaginary gods and devils. Did you even consider Shiva or Vishnu when you interpreted your experience, or are those deities laughable in a way that the Christian gods are not?

What evidence, short of God showing up, would ever be sufficient for an atheist? So that is why I tell them to seek God, see him, and speak with him instead.

You used to be an atheist, you tell me. Personally, I can think of all kinds of evidence for the existence of God that would be sufficient to compel belief, and a personal visitation is not among them. I've never personally experienced argon, for instance, and yet I find the evidence for its existence positively overwhelming.

[_Tobin]

I'm only going to get into this here with you this one time. I really have no interest in discussing things with you because you rarely say anything interesting or thought provoking and it is just a waste of my time.

You just did. You just stated that in the quote below. Can't you remember what you said just before this post?

Interesting that I never implied that I expected you to be perfect, but yet you interpreted my bringing up an area of weakness means I expect you to be perfect. Working on reading comprehension would help, but I expect you do this more to distract from the other issues you are having trouble with.

And there you go again. Since you seem incapable of dealing with what you said, I'll quote you. Themis said, "I guess my question you cannot answer must really be pissing you off." Your statement clearly indicates that I'm pissed off because I can't asnwer your question. That is absurd. I can't possibly answer all your possible questions and your expectation that I can (or that it would piss me off) is stupid.

Not really. Alfredo's question was him playing ignorant (for fun I suspect) of the scriptures and what others have said on the topic. I wasn't going to play with him and kept ignoring his questions because the premise was frankly stupid.

I know what you think of the question just as I know you missed what he was really getting at.

Just more baseless assertions from you. You state I missed (couldn't understand) what he was saying, yet acknowledge I was ignoring what he was stating because I found it insipid. You are incapable of maintaining a coherent thought in the same sentence.

You are sadly deluded about what the prophets teach and the scriptures. They all invite you to seek, see, and speak with the Lord.

Yet I never suggested they and other prophets didn't. Again you miss the point.

And yet, every time I turn around you question the request. I believe you claim to have been Mormon at one point, yet you seem to have a shocking lack of clarity of about you need to do to know the truth about God or if the scriptures, Mormonism, and so on are really from him.

And you have yet to point out a problem with how I've described what actually happened with the papyrus. The only inconsistency is in your head.

The inconsistency here is that on other issues you argue that God wants to make sure and correct things that are wrong, but on this one you don't.

Again, the lack of coherency in your statements. What you are alluding to is when Jesus came to the Americas and corrected the scriptures. However, you fail to recognize that they were incorrect up to the point the Jesus actually did that, so people were getting the wrong idea. The same is true here.

You are blatantly ignorant of how Joseph Smith was shown things (it was a painstaking process requiring concentration on his part) and make absurd assertions about how God had to correct Joseph Smith on such and such when it is clear Joseph Smith's understanding was constantly evolving and he often had mistaken impressions and had to learn and correct things over time as his understanding improved.

Why don't we stick with the facts instead of your assertions here you don't really know. You are making up in your head what you think Joseph was doing yet don't provide any sources to back it up and attack those who do.

And why don't you show the slightest indication that you have ever read anything about the history of the Church, what Joseph Smith had to say, or how the Book of Mormon and other revelations were received. What Joseph Smith revealed evolved over time. In fact, this is often a criticism lodged against him. Yet you blissfully like to pretend everything was handed to Joseph Smith on a gold platter on day one. Again, you just can't help but to be inconsistent. And I'm done with you.

[_Tobin]

When I was an atheist, I maintained there was no evidence of God, so I didn't believe in a God, gods, or the tooth fairy. If people wished to believe for whatever reason, that was up to them. I wasn't going to waste my time on it since there are much more interesting things to do and talk about.

So, as an atheist, life was far too interesting to waste time arguing with believers. But as a believer, you don't have much better to do than argue with atheists. Where do I sign up?

That is ridiculous contention and you can't seriously believe that all atheists engage in forums like this with believers (especially Mormons). You may do so, but I, having grown up Mormon, had no interest in the topic any longer and considered it non-sense. There are a plethora of things to do and discuss outside of this small forum. The world just isn't that small. Now, your question asks why do I now engage in this forum as a believer? Because I am a Mormon and the topic interests me.

So when atheists wish to wander down the rabbit hole of belief, scriptures, and so on I have to wonder are they really atheists at all?

I'm kind of wondering the same thing about you. Supposedly you were an atheist who was much to interested in living life to bother with something as mundane as discussing religion, and yet when you suddenly experience something unusual and seemingly supernatural, you immediately interpret it through a very specific religious paradigm. You claim other possible interpretations are laughable, as if even atheists know that Satan is not more powerful than God, for example. In my experience, real atheists (especially ones who are busy doing more interesting things than caring about religion) don't automatically know the relative strengths and weaknesses of imaginary gods and devils. Did you even consider Shiva or Vishnu when you interpreted your experience, or are those deities laughable in a way that the Christian gods are not?

Actually, I do accept those other traditions and find them useful. In fact, I'm studying Buddhism. I certainly am not claiming that Mormons are the only ones that have exclusively experienced God or have interesting things to say about it.

What evidence, short of God showing up, would ever be sufficient for an atheist? So that is why I tell them to seek God, see him, and speak with him instead.

You used to be an atheist, you tell me. Personally, I can think of all kinds of evidence for the existence of God that would be sufficient to compel belief, and a personal visitation is not among them. I've never personally experienced argon, for instance, and yet I find the evidence for its existence positively overwhelming.

Such as?

[_Sophocles]

You used to be an atheist, you tell me. Personally, I can think of all kinds of evidence for the existence of God that would be sufficient to compel belief, and a personal visitation is not among them. I've never personally experienced argon, for instance, and yet I find the evidence for its existence positively overwhelming.

Such as?

Like I said, such as the kind of evidence that convinces me that argon is a real thing.

[_Themis]

I'm only going to get into this here with you this one time. I really have no interest in discussing things with you because you rarely say anything interesting or thought provoking and it is just a waste of my time.

You have a major reading comprehension problem. This really is the problem. You consistently don't get the points people are bringing up.

And there you go again. Since you seem incapable of dealing with what you said, I'll quote you. Themis said, "I guess my question you cannot answer must really be pissing you off." Your statement clearly indicates that I'm pissed off because I can't asnwer your question. That is absurd. I can't possibly answer all your possible questions and your expectation that I can (or that it would piss me off) is stupid.

You can't answer them simply because there are no good answers. This is why I ask them, to show why your arguments fail.

Just more baseless assertions from you. You state I missed (couldn't understand) what he was saying, yet acknowledge I was ignoring what he was stating because I found it insipid. You are incapable of maintaining a coherent thought in the same sentence.

Try reading our posts for comprehension. I said you did not understand what he was asking, but thought he was asking something else so you were getting upset to the point of ignoring him. You do this with me and others. We try to get you to understand, but you seem incapable.

And yet, every time I turn around you question the request. I believe you claim to have been Mormon at one point, yet you seem to have a shocking lack of clarity of about you need to do to know the truth about God or if the scriptures, Mormonism, and so on are really from him.

I know well what the church teaches on it. It is you that doesn't like what they say about the HG being the one to teach people the truth. I can agree with you on this.

Again, the lack of coherency in your statements. What you are alluding to is when Jesus came to the Americas and corrected the scriptures. However, you fail to recognize that they were incorrect up to the point the Jesus actually did that, so people were getting the wrong idea. The same is true here.

And this is how you are inconsistent with the catalyst theory. Joseph got it wrong but Jesus is not goi9ng to correct him here while he will in other things. The problems are many with the catalyst theory. How Joseph would get it wrong in the first place, why God would play along, why God would not correct him even though he is in contact with him about so many other things, and why Joseph should be wrong about what is going on.

And why don't you show the slightest indication that you have ever read anything about the history of the Church, what Joseph Smith had to say, or how the Book of Mormon and other revelations were received.

I know them well. It's history you have to ignore(not to mention logic) to come up with the catalyst theory. Remember it was I who had to tell you the Book of Abraham was not only incomplete, but was an ongoing project over years.

What Joseph Smith revealed evolved over time.

Joseph ideas evolved over time as he was making his religion.

In fact, this is often a criticism lodged against him. Yet you blissfully like to pretend everything was handed to Joseph Smith on a gold platter on day one. Again, you just can't help but to be inconsistent.

Again I am the one would told you about how the incomplete Book of Abraham came about.

And I'm done with you.

That's fine. I will still bring up the problems with your arguments. Not that others can't see the obvious anyways. I have tried to deal with the facts with you, but you really only want to assert things without substance as you do with what you think Joesph was doing with the papyri. It ignores things like the A&G.

[_Tobin]

I'm just going to ignore everything you had to say since it is just more of the same. However, you did bring up one bizarre assertion that is competely groundless.

Remember it was I who had to tell you the Book of Abraham was not only incomplete, but was an ongoing project over years.

Oh really? I'd love to see where I stated anything to the effect the Book of Abraham was complete or acknowledged you enlightened me to the effect it was incomplete. You just made that up and I'm calling you on it.

[_Themis]

I'm just going to ignore everything you had to say since it is just more of the same. However, you did bring up one bizarre assertion that is competely groundless.

I think you are a nice guy, even if you don't understand many of the issues here.

Oh really? I'd love to see where I stated anything to the effect the Book of Abraham was complete or acknowledged you enlightened me to the effect it was incomplete. You just made that up and I'm calling you on it.

I am not suggesting it on anything you said directly, but indirectly regarding the catalyst theory. It strongly suggests a lack of knowledge regarding Book of Abraham issues.