guy sajer wrote:And how do you know what Dawkins has read, who he's talked with, etc? Your assuming you've studied more than him, but you don't know that. I have no problem with making assumptions like this; only at least be honest that's what you're doing.
I dare say that your posts don't reflect such an eclectic knowledge base or frame of refrence. You come across often as if you're reading directly from the Mormon Talking Points handbook.
What was I doing in the Church? Two answers: (1) I was born into it, and (2) decades of indoctrination. It just took me a while to break free of my programming.
I don't know what Dawkins has read. He did seem ignorant in his book of the arguments as to who and what God is and how people worship him.
We have a talking points handbook? I didn't get my copy. I assure you I'm making it up as I go along if that makes you feel better. It is weird to have what I say be called typical Mormon response. I usually tend to be relegated to a fringe of Mormonism as an eccentric. I'm not sure whether to be offended or complimented. I'll be safe and be both. :)
Hey, Nehor, I don't want this to get out of hand. Perhaps you are not mainstream; you are definitely eccentric, but you're also a nice guy who's respectful, for the most part, of others, and I'd like to reciprocate. I apologize if I went too far. Let's agree to disagree and be done with it and move on.
Deal?
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Tarski wrote:One thing is for sure; very few people are holding up the Mormon idea of a bearded white male God as something which Dawkins shouldn't have overlooked. They would say that this Mormon idea of a God is even less sophisticated and more unlikely than the God which they think Dawkins denies.
Eagleton would agree with this, I think. When he says Dawkins overlooked deep theological insights, he wasn't thinking of Mormonism.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
Tarski wrote:One thing is for sure; very few people are holding up the Mormon idea of a bearded white male God as something which Dawkins shouldn't have overlooked. They would say that this Mormon idea of a God is even less sophisticated and more unlikely than the God which they think Dawkins denies.
Eagleton would agree with this, I think. When he says Dawkins overlooked deep theological insights, he wasn't thinking of Mormonism.
that's 10000% for sure. i briefly caught runtu's post at FAIR and some "schryver(?)" guy posted something about how well said Eagleton's views were. I was thinking, and which of those things he said could possibly have anything to do with the church? i can't see mainstream theologins agreeing with him and Mormonism is even further removed.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
guy sajer wrote:And how do you know what Dawkins has read, who he's talked with, etc? Your assuming you've studied more than him, but you don't know that. I have no problem with making assumptions like this; only at least be honest that's what you're doing.
I dare say that your posts don't reflect such an eclectic knowledge base or frame of refrence. You come across often as if you're reading directly from the Mormon Talking Points handbook.
What was I doing in the Church? Two answers: (1) I was born into it, and (2) decades of indoctrination. It just took me a while to break free of my programming.
I don't know what Dawkins has read. He did seem ignorant in his book of the arguments as to who and what God is and how people worship him.
We have a talking points handbook? I didn't get my copy. I assure you I'm making it up as I go along if that makes you feel better. It is weird to have what I say be called typical Mormon response. I usually tend to be relegated to a fringe of Mormonism as an eccentric. I'm not sure whether to be offended or complimented. I'll be safe and be both. :)
Hey, Nehor, I don't want this to get out of hand. Perhaps you are not mainstream; you are definitely eccentric, but you're also a nice guy who's respectful, for the most part, of others, and I'd like to reciprocate. I apologize if I went too far. Let's agree to disagree and be done with it and move on.
Deal?
Sounds good, I don't think we're going to come to a consensus on this.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Tarski wrote: One thing is for sure; very few people are holding up the Mormon idea of a bearded white male God as something which Dawkins shouldn't have overlooked. They would say that this Mormon idea of a God is even less sophisticated and more unlikely than the God which they think Dawkins denies.
Since when are human beings sophisticated? And since God had human form, why would he look sophisticated? I would think that he would look like an average human being who has been exalted. The Mormon view is very real in my opinion.
Terry Eagleton is a great guy who has a Marxist background. For Eagleton to take Dawkins to task is of major importance. It seems that atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens are experiencing a lot of heat for giving atheism a bad name and rightly so. I have no respect for narrow minded atheists such as I listed above. Secularism should be an open minded belief system, deeply respectful of other belief systems. People like Dawkins and Hitchens are not good respresentatives for secularist thought.
Tarski wrote: One thing is for sure; very few people are holding up the Mormon idea of a bearded white male God as something which Dawkins shouldn't have overlooked. They would say that this Mormon idea of a God is even less sophisticated and more unlikely than the God which they think Dawkins denies.
Since when are human beings sophisticated? And since God had human form, why would he look sophisticated? I would think that he would look like an average human being who has been exalted. The Mormon view is very real in my opinion.
To be very honest, and I rarely chime in on these matters and I'll delete this in the morning, I just can't imagine God looking like a man.
Which man? Why not a woman? Is he hairy? Does he have all his *parts*?
I just can't wrap my mind around it. Which guy does he look like? Is he a stud? Or an old/wise man?
I vote for old/wise. I may have to start to worship if that's the case.
Tarski wrote: One thing is for sure; very few people are holding up the Mormon idea of a bearded white male God as something which Dawkins shouldn't have overlooked. They would say that this Mormon idea of a God is even less sophisticated and more unlikely than the God which they think Dawkins denies.
Since when are human beings sophisticated? And since God had human form, why would he look sophisticated? I would think that he would look like an average human being who has been exalted. The Mormon view is very real in my opinion.
To be very honest, and I rarely chime in on these matters and I'll delete this in the morning, I just can't imagine God looking like a man.
Which man? Why not a woman? Is he hairy? Does he have all his *parts*?
I just can't wrap my mind around it. Which guy does he look like? Is he a stud? Or an old/wise man?
I vote for old/wise. I may have to start to worship if that's the case.
Heck. Under Mormon doctrine, or according to Joseph Smith, anyway (is what he said Mormon doctrine?), God could look just like a tiny little kid, for all we know.
Check CK's post somewhere on this board. He made that observation and he was right.
Edited to fix spelling errors.
Last edited by Google Desktop on Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
Tarski wrote: One thing is for sure; very few people are holding up the Mormon idea of a bearded white male God as something which Dawkins shouldn't have overlooked. They would say that this Mormon idea of a God is even less sophisticated and more unlikely than the God which they think Dawkins denies.
Since when are human beings sophisticated? And since God had human form, why would he look sophisticated? I would think that he would look like an average human being who has been exalted. The Mormon view is very real in my opinion.
To be very honest, and I rarely chime in on these matters and I'll delete this in the morning, I just can't imagine God looking like a man.
Which man? Why not a woman? Is he hairy? Does he have all his *parts*?
I just can't wrap my mind around it. Which guy does he look like? Is he a stud? Or an old/wise man?
I vote for old/wise. I may have to start to worship if that's the case.
Heck. Under Mormon doctrine, or according to Joseph Smith, anyway (is what he said Mormon doctrine?), God could look just a tiny little kid, for all we know.
Check CK's post somewhere on this board. He made that observation and he was right.
Yah I saw that post gramps!
Scared kitty!
*edited to fix gramps spelling errors*
Last edited by Guest on Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tarski wrote: One thing is for sure; very few people are holding up the Mormon idea of a bearded white male God as something which Dawkins shouldn't have overlooked. They would say that this Mormon idea of a God is even less sophisticated and more unlikely than the God which they think Dawkins denies.
Since when are human beings sophisticated? And since God had human form, why would he look sophisticated? I would think that he would look like an average human being who has been exalted. The Mormon view is very real in my opinion.
To be very honest, and I rarely chime in on these matters and I'll delete this in the morning, I just can't imagine God looking like a man.
Which man? Why not a woman? Is he hairy? Does he have all his *parts*?
I just can't wrap my mind around it. Which guy does he look like? Is he a stud? Or an old/wise man?
I vote for old/wise. I may have to start to worship if that's the case.
Heck. Under Mormon doctrine, or according to Joseph Smith, anyway (is what he said Mormon doctrine?), God could look just a tiny little kid, for all we know.
Check CK's post somewhere on this board. He made that observation and he wss right.
Yah I saw that post gramps!
Scared kitty!
Yeah, that one!
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland