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

[Marcus]

I am certainly not all knowing here but my estimate is that MG and Kevinsims are two entirely different people. Their style of speech and thought are quite different to my ears anyway. Perhaps they both miss counter arguments which can be frustrating .

I don't see the similarities either. Both have very different theologies. Both speak with different voices. Their argument style isn't similar. The only significant thing I see that they have in common is that they appear to have raised the ire of the same community members.

and for good reason. Kevinsims has left off quotes in comments, then multiple times feigned ignorance at what quotes were referenced to avoid questions, truncated comments so as to completely change their meaning, and targeted the exact same people (whose "ire" you noted) with mentalgymnast's techniques, among other strategies.

Maybe a better argument would be to ask why KS is exactly channeling mentalgymnast's previous disingenuities.

[doubtingthomas]

Do you want that to happen?

No!

I hope it never happens. But if it does, I'm sure God later blesses you with a beautiful young woman.

[doubtingthomas]

This morning I felt something I couldn't explain. I feel someone is about to show me the way, but I don't know what that means.

Doubtingthomas, that sounds very interesting. Keep me updated on what happens to you.

I had a dream last night. In my dream, an eagle was approaching me with a very loud voice.

What do you think it means?

[doubtingthomas]

And MG wonders why he’s been labeled a liar, a deceiver, and a troll. Mods, would you please hold MG to one handle, please?

- Doc

-_-

[KevinSim]

You quoted a two-sentence paragraph of mine, actually the only paragraph I wrote in that post. Except you omitted the first sentence, and thereby substantially altered the meaning of what I said. Are you saying (by analogy) that you chose one of the two sentences to quote because you thought that perhaps the other one wasn't important to me?

The other one confused me; it seemed to contradict the second sentence (talking about a hypothetical occurrence when the second sentence seemed to be talking of a very specific occurrence) and I didn't know what to do with it.

It's not just the occurrence - it's that a pattern seems to be emerging.

Hey, I've already (sort of) apologized for that post. Do you want me to apologize again? And how do you get a pattern with just one incident? The second incident involved me "leaving out" two items from a post that were never there in the first place.

[Marcus]

You quoted a two-sentence paragraph of mine, actually the only paragraph I wrote in that post. Except you omitted the first sentence, and thereby substantially altered the meaning of what I said. Are you saying (by analogy) that you chose one of the two sentences to quote because you thought that perhaps the other one wasn't important to me?

The other one confused me; it seemed to contradict the second sentence (talking about a hypothetical occurrence when the second sentence seemed to be talking of a very specific occurrence) and I didn't know what to do with it.

It's not just the occurrence - it's that a pattern seems to be emerging.

Hey, I've already (sort of) apologized for that post. Do you want me to apologize again? And how do you get a pattern with just one incident? The second incident involved me "leaving out" two items from a post that were never there in the first place.

and the nonsense continues.

[malkie]

You quoted a two-sentence paragraph of mine, actually the only paragraph I wrote in that post. Except you omitted the first sentence, and thereby substantially altered the meaning of what I said. Are you saying (by analogy) that you chose one of the two sentences to quote because you thought that perhaps the other one wasn't important to me?

The other one confused me; it seemed to contradict the second sentence (talking about a hypothetical occurrence when the second sentence seemed to be talking of a very specific occurrence) and I didn't know what to do with it.

Suggestion: if you "don't know what to do", and/or are "confused", a good thing to do is either to ask directly, or to paraphrase what you think the other person might be trying to say, and indicate that that's what you are doing.

Responding to something you don't understand as if you did, and mangling what you are responding to, is generally not very effective or productive.

It's not just the occurrence - it's that a pattern seems to be emerging.

Hey, I've already (sort of) apologized for that post. Do you want me to apologize again? And how do you get a pattern with just one incident? The second incident involved me "leaving out" two items from a post that were never there in the first place.

No need to apologise again to me. However, while one incident with me would not, on its own, make a pattern, it does when you combine that incident with other similar ones with other people.

If the second incident you are referring to involves Marcus, then I think you need to revisit that. I believe that Marcus has shown conclusively that the two items you claim "were never there in the first place" were indeed there.

[Res Ipsa]

What if humans are not that good thing that your conception of God knows how to preserve forever.

They're still not going to last forever.

How can you be certain that humans, unassisted by God, cannot I’ll live forever. The predicted heat death of the universe is a long ways off.

I'm not as worried about universal heat death, which we're aware of, as I am about all the other species survival threatening crises before then, that we're not aware of. We're not doing all that well with climate change right now. As a species we keep putting the metaphorical revolver to our head, spinning the chambers, and pulling the trigger. One of these times the gun is going to go off.

I agree, but I don’t see what that has to do with the existence of your God. And I don’t understand why you think I have some special duty to some future generation that I literally know nothing about as opposed to the next generation after mine.

[Res Ipsa]

Kevin, I've puzzled on this a few times. I don't understand why you claim that "humans need God," so I'd like to see the argument behind that.

Kevin is a lot like MG2.0 in that he expects you to do the work to show that he is right. I wouldn’t hold my breath…

I don’t see where he has asked me to do any work. He wouldn’t be the first (or the hundredth) person I’ve encountered that articulated some type of argument that they seemed to believe was self evident, but made no sense to me. I generally understand how MG gets from A to B, even though I rarely agree with his premises or reasoning. With KevinSim, I don’t have a clue. My WAG is that there are some unarticulated assumptions that he takes for granted and so does not make them explicit. I’m interested in understanding before arguing so that I’m fairly confident what I’m arguing about.

[KevinSim]

Kevin/MG is just a product of their predominant culture and religious tradition, which is to lie but act like you’re not lying, and then act like a besmirched victim when they can’t keep their lying up.

Doc, what have I said that you consider a lie?