Faithful TBM to doubter in 6 hours on ex-Mormon Reddit

[MG 2.0]

Hi folks,
Just a quick ‘hop in’ to put some minds at rest. I am not Kevin Sim. In fact, I think it is rather obvious, as one poster said, that our “theologies” do not exactly dovetail. One thing I think we have in common, however, is that we both like to explore how our own views in regards to Mormonism stand up to criticism on a board consisting mostly of secularists/atheists.

Also, we don’t have the same speaking/writing style.

Two authors, not the same person.

i.e. Book of Mormon- multiple authors, not the same person.

Some folks seem to have a difficult time understanding things at face value.

Anyway, carry on.

Over and out. I hope everyone is enjoying their summer.

P.S.
Meadowchick, I enjoy your deeply expressed and well thought out posts. I guess that is something else Kevin Sim and I have in common.

Later.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Hi folks,
Just a quick ‘hop in’ to put some minds at rest. I am not Kevin Sim. In fact, I think it is rather obvious, as one poster said, that our “theologies” do not exactly dovetail. One thing I think we have in common, however, is that we both like to explore how our own views in regards to Mormonism stand up to criticism on a board consisting mostly of secularists/atheists.

Also, we don’t have the same speaking/writing style.

Two authors, not the same person.

i.e. Book of Mormon- multiple authors, not the same person.

Some folks seem to have a difficult time understanding things at face value.

Anyway, carry on.

Over and out. I hope everyone is enjoying their summer.

P.S.
Meadowchick, I enjoy your deeply expressed and well thought out posts. I guess that is something else Kevin Sim and I have in common.

Later.

Regards,
MG

Good to see you still around MG.

[doubtingthomas]

I am not Kevin Sim.

Matt Reeves's Joker knows who you are.

[IHAQ]

Hi folks,
Just a quick ‘hop in’ to put some minds at rest. I am not Kevin Sim. In fact, I think it is rather obvious, as one poster said, that our “theologies” do not exactly dovetail. One thing I think we have in common, however, is that we both like to explore how our own views in regards to Mormonism stand up to criticism on a board consisting mostly of secularists/atheists.

Also, we don’t have the same speaking/writing style.

Two authors, not the same person.

i.e. Book of Mormon- multiple authors, not the same person.

Some folks seem to have a difficult time understanding things at face value.

Anyway, carry on.

Over and out. I hope everyone is enjoying their summer.

P.S.
Meadowchick, I enjoy your deeply expressed and well thought out posts. I guess that is something else Kevin Sim and I have in common.

Later.

Regards,
MG

[KevinSim]

Given the vastness of the universe, what reason would we have to believe that homo sapiens are the only good thing that exists, let alone the one good thing that God has chosen to preserve?

Res Ipsa, what have I said that gave you the impression that I believe homo sapiens is the only good thing that exists, or the one good thing that God has chosen to preserve?

If God exists and wants to preserve human life forever, what’s stopping him? More specifically, what specifically is it that I must do that would enable God to accomplish the stated goal?

I think you should ask God that question.

The best I could do is as suggested by Meadowchick: take the existence, health, and well being of the next generation into account in my own decision making.

That's not what Meadowchik said; s/he recognized an obligation to all future generations, including the last.

Finally, that we “need” your God says nothing about its existence.

I haven't been arguing for the existence of God in this subthread; I've just been trying to explain why I believe in Him. For my reasons for believing that God actually exists, see what I've said in this thread about determinism and non-determinism.

[KevinSim]

99.9 % of all living things on Earth have gone extinct. Do you think they are lesser?

No, I don't.

And how do you know they don't have a concept of forever?

I admit that I don't. You got me there! I would still think it was ironic if the human race gave up on forever.

[Res Ipsa]

Given the vastness of the universe, what reason would we have to believe that homo sapiens are the only good thing that exists, let alone the one good thing that God has chosen to preserve?

Res Ipsa, what have I said that gave you the impression that I believe homo sapiens is the only good thing that exists, or the one good thing that God has chosen to preserve?

If God exists and wants to preserve human life forever, what’s stopping him? More specifically, what specifically is it that I must do that would enable God to accomplish the stated goal?

I think you should ask God that question.

The best I could do is as suggested by Meadowchick: take the existence, health, and well being of the next generation into account in my own decision making.

That's not what Meadowchik said; s/he recognized an obligation to all future generations, including the last.

Finally, that we “need” your God says nothing about its existence.

I haven't been arguing for the existence of God in this subthread; I've just been trying to explain why I believe in Him. For my reasons for believing that God actually exists, see what I've said in this thread about determinism and non-determinism.

If you don't believe that homo sapiens is the one good thing God has chosen to preserve or that homo sapiens is the one good thing that exists, all you have to do is correct me and identify the "some good thing" that your God knows how to preserve forever. I've tried asking you questions, but you haven't answered them. If I understand you correctly, there is some good thing about humanity that ends up having a God enable humanity to exist forever. What is that good thing?

What Meadowchick and I agree on, I believe, is that we don't owe a special duty to the "last" generation that we don't owe others. If I paraphrased her point incorrectly, the incorrect part is immaterial to the point I was making.

The problem is that you haven't been clear at all what you are arguing for. The assertion to which I and others reacted was your assertion that, if God doesn't exist, atheists have a moral obligation to make sure God exists. But when asked about that, you responded with a string of statements that don't support the assertion and whose relationship to each other wasn't clear. You've been asked a number of questions to clarify what you mean, which you've avoided answering. Instead of telling us what you mean, you divert to questions like "what did I say that made you think that?" It's not what you've said. It's what you are saying that is leaving us to play a totally unnecessary guessing game. I've done my best to give you the benefit of the doubt, but that's very had to do when you won't answer a straight forward question about things you've posted.

I'm not going to ask your God anything, as I don't believe your God exists.

My normal response at this point would be to list all the questions people have asked that would help them understand what you are talking about, but I'm sensing it would be a waste of time. If you have not started answering questions yet, I doubt you'll start now.

[Philo Sofee]

Res Ipsa, what have I said that gave you the impression that I believe homo sapiens is the only good thing that exists, or the one good thing that God has chosen to preserve?

I think you should ask God that question.

That's not what Meadowchik said; s/he recognized an obligation to all future generations, including the last.

I haven't been arguing for the existence of God in this subthread; I've just been trying to explain why I believe in Him. For my reasons for believing that God actually exists, see what I've said in this thread about determinism and non-determinism.

If you don't believe that homo sapiens is the one good thing God has chosen to preserve or that homo sapiens is the one good thing that exists, all you have to do is correct me and identify the "some good thing" that your God knows how to preserve forever. I've tried asking you questions, but you haven't answered them. If I understand you correctly, there is some good thing about humanity that ends up having a God enable humanity to exist forever. What is that good thing?

What Meadowchick and I agree on, I believe, is that we don't owe a special duty to the "last" generation that we don't owe others. If I paraphrased her point incorrectly, the incorrect part is immaterial to the point I was making.

The problem is that you haven't been clear at all what you are arguing for. The assertion to which I and others reacted was your assertion that, if God doesn't exist, atheists have a moral obligation to make sure God exists. But when asked about that, you responded with a string of statements that don't support the assertion and whose relationship to each other wasn't clear. You've been asked a number of questions to clarify what you mean, which you've avoided answering. Instead of telling us what you mean, you divert to questions like "what did I say that made you think that?" It's not what you've said. It's what you are saying that is leaving us to play a totally unnecessary guessing game. I've done my best to give you the benefit of the doubt, but that's very had to do when you won't answer a straight forward question about things you've posted.

I'm not going to ask your God anything, as I don't believe your God exists.

My normal response at this point would be to list all the questions people have asked that would help them understand what you are talking about, but I'm sensing it would be a waste of time. If you have started answering questions yet, I doubt you'll start now.

Ah Res! Is it any wonder you are one of my favorite posters to read?

[Res Ipsa]

If you don't believe that homo sapiens is the one good thing God has chosen to preserve or that homo sapiens is the one good thing that exists, all you have to do is correct me and identify the "some good thing" that your God knows how to preserve forever. I've tried asking you questions, but you haven't answered them. If I understand you correctly, there is some good thing about humanity that ends up having a God enable humanity to exist forever. What is that good thing?

What Meadowchick and I agree on, I believe, is that we don't owe a special duty to the "last" generation that we don't owe others. If I paraphrased her point incorrectly, the incorrect part is immaterial to the point I was making.

The problem is that you haven't been clear at all what you are arguing for. The assertion to which I and others reacted was your assertion that, if God doesn't exist, atheists have a moral obligation to make sure God exists. But when asked about that, you responded with a string of statements that don't support the assertion and whose relationship to each other wasn't clear. You've been asked a number of questions to clarify what you mean, which you've avoided answering. Instead of telling us what you mean, you divert to questions like "what did I say that made you think that?" It's not what you've said. It's what you are saying that is leaving us to play a totally unnecessary guessing game. I've done my best to give you the benefit of the doubt, but that's very had to do when you won't answer a straight forward question about things you've posted.

I'm not going to ask your God anything, as I don't believe your God exists.

My normal response at this point would be to list all the questions people have asked that would help them understand what you are talking about, but I'm sensing it would be a waste of time. If you have started answering questions yet, I doubt you'll start now.

Ah Res! Is it any wonder you are one of my favorite posters to read?

Thanks Philo. What a nice thing to say.

[Philo Sofee]

Ah Res! Is it any wonder you are one of my favorite posters to read?

Thanks Philo. What a nice thing to say.

Yeah don't push it too much...