Excellent takedown of Mopologist DNA misinformation

[Rivendale]

That isn't the focus of this thread and I am not going to educate you on each and everyone. They are all ridiculous on the face of it with Nahom near the top but that is because I found this undergraduate (former active believing member who lives in Yemen) pummeling of Nahom hilarious. If you have the stomach for it, here is the link. If not, ignore it.

https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... mon_nahom/

I've seen that reddit exchange before.

Regards,
MG

I don't have any problem with people having faith in their religion. However, having faith in spite of the evidence is a problem.

[MG 2.0]

I've seen that reddit exchange before.

Regards,
MG

I don't have any problem with people having faith in their religion. However, having faith in spite of the evidence is a problem.

Understood. Having faith when there is evidence should not a problem either. I think folks on either side of the spectrum ought to co-exist. The problem, however, is that those that do not have faith seem to have an obsession with destroying the faith of those that believe. The argument is used, "Well, you send missionaries to my door." That's a weak reason, in my opinion, to go online and consistently...day by day...say and do those things which are anti-faith and anti-belief.

Why not live and let live? It's an interesting thing to watch as the critics spend so much of their time as non-believers trying to bring believers over to their side. Of course, they will say that's not what they're doing. But they are. Otherwise it seems as though they would be out on the upper nine. I can see why believers want to share their faith, but I struggle to see why disbelievers are so intent on sharing their non-faith and constantly feel it necessary to criticize the leaders of the LDS faith.

Why is that?

Regards,
MG

[Dr Exiled]

I don't have any problem with people having faith in their religion. However, having faith in spite of the evidence is a problem.

Understood. Having faith when there is evidence should not a problem either. I think folks on either side of the spectrum ought to co-exist. The problem, however, is that those that do not have faith seem to have an obsession with destroying the faith of those that believe. The argument is used, "Well, you send missionaries to my door." That's a weak reason, in my opinion, to go online and consistently...day by day...say and do those things which are anti-faith and anti-belief.

Why not live and let live? It's an interesting thing to watch as the critics spend so much of their time as non-believers trying to bring believers over to their side. Of course, they will say that's not what they're doing. But they are. Otherwise it seems as though they would be out on the upper nine. I can see why believers want to share their faith, but I struggle to see why disbelievers are so intent on sharing their non-faith and constantly feel it necessary to criticize the leaders of the LDS faith.

Why is that?

Regards,
MG

It just ain't so, to parrot Mark Twain. Why believe myth as if it were actual reality? And missionary work, regardless of the belief spectrum is the same one way or another. One group is selling this and the other group is selling that. However, reality should govern and asking for money and time based on unsupported belief should be discouraged.

[Rivendale]

I don't have any problem with people having faith in their religion. However, having faith in spite of the evidence is a problem.

Understood. Having faith when there is evidence should not a problem either. I think folks on either side of the spectrum ought to co-exist. The problem, however, is that those that do not have faith seem to have an obsession with destroying the faith of those that believe. The argument is used, "Well, you send missionaries to my door." That's a weak reason, in my opinion, to go online and consistently...day by day...say and do those things which are anti-faith and anti-belief.

Why not live and let live? It's an interesting thing to watch as the critics spend so much of their time as non-believers trying to bring believers over to their side. Of course, they will say that's not what they're doing. But they are. Otherwise it seems as though they would be out on the upper nine. I can see why believers want to share their faith, but I struggle to see why disbelievers are so intent on sharing their non-faith and constantly feel it necessary to criticize the leaders of the LDS faith.

Why is that?

Regards,
MG

Everyone had their own motivation. What I find most troublesome is the ongoing effort to teach children demonstrably false things about the nature of the world and Universe. As well as the social interactions they encounter regarding their life's path. Members of the faith are far far from guiltless of the same thing, getting their marching orders from leaders who rarely earn their positions by demonstrated skill and knowledge and it is all based on something that eludes any rational reason to think it is true.

[MG 2.0]

Understood. Having faith when there is evidence should not a problem either. I think folks on either side of the spectrum ought to co-exist. The problem, however, is that those that do not have faith seem to have an obsession with destroying the faith of those that believe. The argument is used, "Well, you send missionaries to my door." That's a weak reason, in my opinion, to go online and consistently...day by day...say and do those things which are anti-faith and anti-belief.

Why not live and let live? It's an interesting thing to watch as the critics spend so much of their time as non-believers trying to bring believers over to their side. Of course, they will say that's not what they're doing. But they are. Otherwise it seems as though they would be out on the upper nine. I can see why believers want to share their faith, but I struggle to see why disbelievers are so intent on sharing their non-faith and constantly feel it necessary to criticize the leaders of the LDS faith.

Why is that?

Regards,
MG

It just ain't so, to parrot Mark Twain. Why believe myth as if it were actual reality? And missionary work, regardless of the belief spectrum is the same one way or another. One group is selling this and the other group is selling that. However, reality should govern and asking for money and time based on unsupported belief should be discouraged.

Do you care that much for those paying tithing to a church you don't belong to to dedicate your time and energy to try and stop them from doing so? I can't imagine your "reality'" giving you that degree of motivation.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Understood. Having faith when there is evidence should not a problem either. I think folks on either side of the spectrum ought to co-exist. The problem, however, is that those that do not have faith seem to have an obsession with destroying the faith of those that believe. The argument is used, "Well, you send missionaries to my door." That's a weak reason, in my opinion, to go online and consistently...day by day...say and do those things which are anti-faith and anti-belief.

Why not live and let live? It's an interesting thing to watch as the critics spend so much of their time as non-believers trying to bring believers over to their side. Of course, they will say that's not what they're doing. But they are. Otherwise it seems as though they would be out on the upper nine. I can see why believers want to share their faith, but I struggle to see why disbelievers are so intent on sharing their non-faith and constantly feel it necessary to criticize the leaders of the LDS faith.

Why is that?

Regards,
MG

Everyone had their own motivation. What I find most troublesome is the ongoing effort to teach children demonstrably false things about the nature of the world and Universe. As well as the social interactions they encounter regarding their life's path. Members of the faith are far far from guiltless of the same thing, getting their marching orders from leaders who rarely earn their positions by demonstrated skill and knowledge and it is all based on something that eludes any rational reason to think it is true.

So you're literally doing it for the children? So to do that you're focused on taking parents out of the church? That's why you're here? The thing is, your pool of potential converts is very small. The chance of your having any indirect influence on children seems VERY small.

You do know this is mainly an echo chamber, right? No children are listening. Any parents here have already steered their children away from the church. Why not just live and let live?

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

The fact remains (and the thing you asked about) that BYU is doing those things you suggested were just internet make-believe.

I think that to a large part it is conjecture not based on actual fact.

When you preface a sentence with “I think”, what follows is conjecture. Baseless conjecture is how you roll. It’s your core modus operandi. No amount of evidence can dissuade you from anything you choose to believe. You’re not here to discuss, you’re here to deny.

[Rivendale]

Everyone had their own motivation. What I find most troublesome is the ongoing effort to teach children demonstrably false things about the nature of the world and Universe. As well as the social interactions they encounter regarding their life's path. Members of the faith are far far from guiltless of the same thing, getting their marching orders from leaders who rarely earn their positions by demonstrated skill and knowledge and it is all based on something that eludes any rational reason to think it is true.

So you're literally doing it for the children? So to do that you're focused on taking parents out of the church? That's why you're here? The thing is, your pool of potential converts is very small. The chance of your having any indirect influence on children seems VERY small.

You do know this is mainly an echo chamber, right? No children are listening. Any parents here have already steered their children away from the church. Why not just live and let live?

Regards,
MG

I didn't say that was why I was here. I merely stated that is one of the glaring harms among many the man made church perpetuates. I am not looking for converts and don't participate in a group echo chamber every Sunday and twice during the year. Why didn't Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks just live and let live?

[MG 2.0]

I think that to a large part it is conjecture not based on actual fact.

When you preface a sentence with “I think”, what follows is conjecture. Baseless conjecture is how you roll. It’s your core modus operandi. No amount of evidence can dissuade you from anything you choose to believe. You’re not here to discuss, you’re here to deny.

I wouldn't think what I think if it was "baseless". That would be dumb.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

It just ain't so, to parrot Mark Twain. Why believe myth as if it were actual reality? And missionary work, regardless of the belief spectrum is the same one way or another. One group is selling this and the other group is selling that. However, reality should govern and asking for money and time based on unsupported belief should be discouraged.

Do you care that much for those paying tithing to a church you don't belong to to dedicate your time and energy to try and stop them from doing so? I can't imagine your "reality'" giving you that degree of motivation.

Regards,
MG

There are a lot of people who value truth enough to counter misinformation. I think you'd agree with me the less people investing in Scientology, the better, no?