The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[MG 2.0]

If one could actually prove that Good was necessary through scientific evidence…

If that was truly the case we wouldn’t be having this conversation, right?

Faith will ALWAYS be necessary if God has purposed this world as such.

I don’t see scientific exploration as being the know all end all.

But it’s kind’a cool.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

…Mr Tours angry pronouncement that we do not know the story of how that worked.

Angry?

I have seen angry atheists.

Regards,
MG

and surely you have seen angry Christians, such as Louis Midgley, who has decided that gemli doesn't know why rape is wrong because he doesn't believe in a god, let alone the Mormon one!

But to be more realistic, have you noticed the exchange between Jersey girl and res Ipsa? One believes in god, one doesn't, but they seem to be in agreement that determining how to live is a vital and valuable part of life, for any human.

I contrast that with your position, somewhat like midgely's, that leaving the LDS church leads people to lose their morals. You are wrong in that assessment. Your continued pronouncements here about that are offensive.

[honorentheos]

LOL. At least he stuck the flounce.

Honor, I apologize for saying what I did. I may consider you somewhat arrogant, but you are not a bastard. That was beneath me to use that language and not fair to you.

Regards,
MG

The language doesn't matter to me. What I lack patience with, and it is an ongoing issue over numerous threads, actually years at this point, is the pattern that goes like this:

1) You read, hear, see, otherwise consume something that seems to you to be an issue for secularism/criticism of Mormonism/other stuff.

2) Post a link to it on the website along with a post. The post can take one of a few levels of confrontational aggression, from fairly passive to what just happened in this thread re:abiogenesis, but they will include pointing out the credentials of the person producing the information and a comment challenging/inquiring how those who don't believe in a creator god might respond to this source. What it won't contain is a summary of the key arguments in the source. You may quote a bit, but not always.

3) If a counter-source is provided, expect the person posting it to summarize it or otherwise explain to you how it addresses the source you initially shared. This is either ignorant or lazy.

4) If the original source is summarized and the counter-argument presented, fall back to everyone having different capacities for faith so if some don't agree that's to be expected. This is a back-handed insult rather than an informed response.

5) Engage in tit-for-tats until your emotions are triggered enough you let the mask of civility drop. Usually when this happens it's almost cartoonish. You admit to being here fighting secular and liberal evils and attempting to halt their spread like a modern-day crusader. Or, as in this thread, you flounce out in a huff.

6) Repeat.

What you should do after step 1 is take a moment to seek out more about the source, the counter arguments that inevitably exist already, and then, you know, understanding the argument and its counter-arguments so you aren't just posting an appeal to authority.

Also, I don't choose to grab lunch with morons. And frankly until you actually demonstrate you can break the cycle above and actually demonstrate understanding of the material you present rather than shuffle it over like a card game of war where you think you've drawn an ace, you confirm you are, in fact, a moron.

I'm not going to be charitable to you, MG. You need to change instead of hoping these hollow apologies can be a reset button. Hit the real reset button and change your behavior.

[Res Ipsa]

If one could actually prove that Good was necessary through scientific evidence…

If that was truly the case we wouldn’t be having this conversation, right?

Faith will ALWAYS be necessary if God has purposed this world as such.

I don’t see scientific exploration as being the know all end all.

But it’s kind’a cool.

Regards,
MG

Sorry, The Good was supposed to be God. Damn, I must have purchased an atheist phone.

You kinda lost me there. If I had looked at the professors argument and concluded “yep, by golly it is impossible for life to occur without God,” I’d absolutely change my position. I’d be an idiot not to.

But that fellow wasn’t even close. And I don’t know what you’ve read and what you haven’t, but the “not enough time” argument was also used with evolution. The main problem with the argument is that it assumes we have complete knowledge about how the process works. The discovery of horizontal gene transfer completely changed our understanding of the rate of genetic change.

Speaking of which, I read a great book called The Tangled Tree. It’s about three discoveries that modified our understanding of how evolution works: the recognition of Archea as a separate domain, the discovery of horizontal gene transfer, and the role of symbiosis in evolution. But the most interesting part to me is the authors description of the family tree. As one goes down the trunk, it changes into a chaotic patch of brambles. It’s almost a if there was all kinds of different life appearing and disappearing if multiple fits and starts, with one of the contenders finally winning out and becoming the lowest part of the trunk. So, s as of now, it may be difficult or impossible to identify the first live organism from which we all descended. It also raises the possibility that the transition from not life to life over many different times. Interesting stuff.

We agree on science being kinda cool. I’m not sure I think of it as a be all out and all, just an imperfect but pretty darn good tool for figuring out life, the universe, and everything.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Honor, I apologize for saying what I did. I may consider you somewhat arrogant, but you are not a bastard. That was beneath me to use that language and not fair to you.

Regards,
MG

The language doesn't matter to me. What I lack patience with, and it is an ongoing issue over numerous threads, actually years at this point, is the pattern that goes like this:

1) You read, hear, see, otherwise consume something that seems to you to be an issue for secularism/criticism of Mormonism/other stuff.

2) Post a link to it on the website along with a post. The post can take one of a few levels of confrontational aggression, from fairly passive to what just happened in this thread re:abiogenesis, but they will include pointing out the credentials of the person producing the information and a comment challenging/inquiring how those who don't believe in a creator god might respond to this source. What it won't contain is a summary of the key arguments in the source. You may quote a bit, but not always.

3) If a counter-source is provided, expect the person posting it to summarize it or otherwise explain to you how it addresses the source you initially shared. This is either ignorant or lazy.

4) If the original source is summarized and the counter-argument presented, fall back to everyone having different capacities for faith so if some don't agree that's to be expected. This is a back-handed insult rather than an informed response.

5) Engage in tit-for-tats until your emotions are triggered enough you let the mask of civility drop. Usually when this happens it's almost cartoonish. You admit to being here fighting secular and liberal evils and attempting to halt their spread like a modern-day crusader. Or, as in this thread, you flounce out in a huff.

6) Repeat.

What you should do after step 1 is take a moment to seek out more about the source, the counter arguments that inevitably exist already, and then, you know, understanding the argument and its counter-arguments so you aren't just posting an appeal to authority.

Also, I don't choose to grab lunch with morons. And frankly until you actually demonstrate you can break the cycle above and actually demonstrate understanding of the material you present rather than shuffle it over like a card game of war where you think you've drawn an ace, you confirm you are, in fact, a moron.

I'm not going to be charitable to you, MG. You need to change instead of hoping these hollow apologies can be a reset button. Hit the real reset button and change your behavior.

This should just be the copypasta when responding to MG.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

…your position [is] that leaving the LDS church leads people to lose their morals.

Not necessarily. It’s possible, sure. I have family, friends, and associates who have either left the church or gone inactive. I would not say that they have “lost their morals”.

They may have a different moral compass, however.

Marcus, you sure seem to have some kind of chip on your shoulder. And you come across as being young and angry.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

…your position [is] that leaving the LDS church leads people to lose their morals.

Not necessarily. It’s possible, sure. I have family, friends, and associates who have either left the church or gone inactive. I would not say that they have “lost their morals”.

They may have a different moral compass, however.

Marcus, you sure seem to have some kind of chip on your shoulder. And you come across as being young and angry.

Regards,
MG

and of course you cut and pasted my post in such a way as to miss my point.
Let me try again. In response to YOUR comment about "angry atheists"

Angry?

I have seen angry atheists.

Regards,
MG

and surely you have seen angry Christians, such as Louis Midgley, who has decided that gemli doesn't know why rape is wrong because he doesn't believe in a god, let alone the Mormon one!

But to be more realistic, have you noticed the exchange between Jersey girl and res Ipsa? One believes in god, one doesn't, but they seem to be in agreement that determining how to live is a vital and valuable part of life, for any human.

I contrast that with your position, somewhat like midgely's, that leaving the LDS church leads people to lose their morals. You are wrong in that assessment. Your continued pronouncements here about that are offensive.

you cut out just one part, and ignored the rest of my comment.

So, let me try again. Did you read the exchange between Jersey girl and res Ipsa?

[malkie]

…your position [is] that leaving the LDS church leads people to lose their morals.

Not necessarily. It’s possible, sure. I have family, friends, and associates who have either left the church or gone inactive. I would not say that they have “lost their morals”.

They may have a different moral compass, however.

Marcus, you sure seem to have some kind of chip on your shoulder. And you come across as being young and angry.

Regards,
MG

Might I suggest that we all drop any references to each others' putative mental states, and discuss ideas rather than people or personalities, or supposed emotions.

[MG 2.0]

This should just be the copypasta when responding to MG.

- Doc

That would take up a lot of page space in threads.

You could simply have a shorthand method of accomplishing the same thing. Simple one word statements? Troll. Moron. Etc.

Oh wait, that’s been the practice for a long while. Honestly I wouldn’t expect anything different. It’s what one might expect as I move about in the thorn patch.

Gonna get pricked over and over.

And the thing is, I have my own style of posting. That won’t change. It will be criticized and mocked. I expect to get hit/stung over and over again.

I’m willing to let other posters and lurkers see things through their own eyes.

At the end of the day I think it is important to have alternate ways of viewing the world and Mormonism in particular have the stage along with the critics.

And yes, I do post source material. I comment on it. I may not go into the breadth and depth that some might like or REQUIRE, but that’s the way it is.

No lunch with Honor. That’s a disappointment.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

…Mr Tours angry pronouncement that we do not know the story of how that worked.

Angry?

I have seen angry atheists.

Regards,
MG

Mg, I am unsure of your intention. I do not know anybody who has not been angry at some times. atheists, believers, agnostics, people who do not care, people who do not want to talk about it all have suffered from anger.Occasionally it might help a communication, occasionally it helps skip or obscure things

Do I need to clarify that I am not an atheist but believe the heavens and earth were created by God?

Perhaps I should have finished repeating my own view. I think if Dave's observations of possible paths for a many stage development of life from simple chemical combinations on earth lead to a complete working picture then you have in that a far far stronger demonstration of fine tuning than the minor matters of earth being well situated in the galaxy.