Reason, Reason, Reason.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_marg

Re: Restorationist Groups

Post by _marg »

harmony wrote:
Roger Morrison wrote:Maybe so, but what an opportunity for JAK to spread "truth"! Great sites & links! IF one was of a suspicious nature, one might think Tommy & JAK were one and the same person!?!? Ya know what I'm sayin'? (I don't think that, by the way :-)

Whatever, me thinks Tommy--and his think-alikes--looks "Dumber an' Dumber" with each post, thanks to JAK. Warm regards, Roger


I guess if one gets their jollies from arguing with a toy, I have no objection. It's just that JAK usually comes across as very intelligent, but right now, he just looks silly to me (kinda like he's having a conversation with a blow-up doll).

It's like if Jason Bourne all of a sudden only wrote posts based on what he thought Jason Bourne, the movie character, would actually say, instead of as he does now with his real personality and thoughts. Tommy isn't a person; Tommy is a caricature, a shadow, a silouette of the real Tommy. He only says what his puppetmaster thinks Thomas Monson would say. He's making fun of us on this bulletin board, and of the LDS church. For JAK to "instruct" him is like JAK instructing the puppet: useless. The puppet is simply a tool with which to ridicule us. Until the guy pulling his strings actually reveals himself, with his own thoughts and personality, engaging Tommy is simply engaging the puppet, a totally useless task.

But by all means, continue.


I agree with you Roger.

Harmony, what Tommy writes is not a gross exaggeration of what many Mormons and other religious individuals who belong to religious fundamentalist groups would actually say. Tommy's arguments and replies are the typical fundamentalist religious replies seen over and over again on the Net, argued seriously by religious folks, argued seriously on this very board as well. JAK's posts are thought provoking and informative. So their value in not for the purpose of winning an argument, JAK is teaching critical thinking concepts.

Tommy may or may not believe anything of what he says. His comments just the same are being exposed for their poor critical thinking.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Restorationist Groups

Post by _Jersey Girl »

marg wrote:
harmony wrote:
Roger Morrison wrote:Maybe so, but what an opportunity for JAK to spread "truth"! Great sites & links! IF one was of a suspicious nature, one might think Tommy & JAK were one and the same person!?!? Ya know what I'm sayin'? (I don't think that, by the way :-)

Whatever, me thinks Tommy--and his think-alikes--looks "Dumber an' Dumber" with each post, thanks to JAK. Warm regards, Roger


I guess if one gets their jollies from arguing with a toy, I have no objection. It's just that JAK usually comes across as very intelligent, but right now, he just looks silly to me (kinda like he's having a conversation with a blow-up doll).

It's like if Jason Bourne all of a sudden only wrote posts based on what he thought Jason Bourne, the movie character, would actually say, instead of as he does now with his real personality and thoughts. Tommy isn't a person; Tommy is a caricature, a shadow, a silouette of the real Tommy. He only says what his puppetmaster thinks Thomas Monson would say. He's making fun of us on this bulletin board, and of the LDS church. For JAK to "instruct" him is like JAK instructing the puppet: useless. The puppet is simply a tool with which to ridicule us. Until the guy pulling his strings actually reveals himself, with his own thoughts and personality, engaging Tommy is simply engaging the puppet, a totally useless task.

But by all means, continue.


I agree with you Roger.

Harmony, what Tommy writes is not a gross exaggeration of what many Mormons and other religious individuals who belong to religious fundamentalist groups would actually say. Tommy's arguments and replies are the typical fundamentalist religious replies seen over and over again on the Net, argued seriously by religious folks, argued seriously on this very board as well. JAK's posts are thought provoking and informative. So their value in not for the purpose of winning an argument, JAK is teaching critical thinking concepts.

Tommy may or may not believe anything of what he says. His comments just the same are being exposed for their poor critical thinking.


Amen, Sistah.

;-)
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Faith is irrelevant. Beliefs contrary to fact and evidence are irrelevant. Information is relevant.


The first premise rises or falls on whether or not you understand faith to be a purely passive mental state, or an active participation in the discovery and application of knowledge. If the latter (which is the Gospel definition) then science itself applies and is dependent upon faith (as are aspects of a number of even its well established theories). As to the second, "facts" rarely appear to us naked and open to unambiguous conceptual clarification. In most cases, "facts" must come to us through methodological filters and templates; they must be interpreted before data can become "fact". We must also ask what counts as evidence when we pit evidence against beliefs supposedly in conflict with it. We must also ask how far we may be going beyond the present facts in our extrapolations from them, especially to questions of religion.

Tommy stated:
I've noticed a number of posts recently where critics of the Lord's work unleash their anger at the annointed (anointed). They demand reason. They demand evidence. They bellow and they argue. They rant and the rave. They gnash their teeth at those who consecrate themselves to the Kingdom.


Vague, meaningless self aggrandizement. Religious mythologies are fiction, Tommy. There are many of them. They don’t agree with one another. They are self-contradictory in their own dogmas. And they substitute doctrine for discovery.


This is true on the periphery, and it is true to a great degree on the periphery. Where it breaks down is at the core. Many, if not most of the world's living and dead religions contain central motifs, symbols, and concepts that are amazingly coherent and patterned, even when understood in a different context. Have no not read Joseph Campbell's work?

Tommy stated:
Brothers and sisters, be ye not dismayed. Be ye not deceived. Do not let doubting thoughts erode the foundation of your faith. Do not succumb to the false teachings of science.



Contrary to any evidence which you can set forward, computer technology is a product of applied science. AND, it is reliable applied science, generally. If you can read this as we could read your topic, the applied science was reliable. “Faith” is irrelevant. God notions are irrelevant as well. Genuine discovery is a product of intellectually honest exploration and discovery.


This, itself, can be taken as simplistic scientistic boilerplate as much as a reasonable description of anything (and has anyone noticed the dogmatic, fundamentalist tone of JAK's posts in this vein?). And, of course, that is indeed, what we have here; one religion in combat with another. Metaphysical materialism (not science per se) against a theistic worldview that accepts both the material and spiritual worlds.

Faith is not irrelevant to science. One needs faith that when one decides to get out of bed each morning, his limbs will respond to the mental commands given them. It is always possible, that they may not.

There is overwhelming evidence for how and why science is reliable and works (as it works in this bb). But it works throughout our reliance on invention and discovery added to discovery over thousands of years in that honest intellectual pursuit of reliable conclusion. “Faith” is irrelevant. God notions are irrelevant.

You present nothing which supports your various flawed claims.

Tommy stated:

Much of JAK's verbiage here are not logical arguments but statements of opinion from which arguments could be constructed if he wished to do so. The last statement begs the question. JAK has not presented any necessary or sufficient reason to believe that "God notions" are inherently without intellectual merit.


Y
ou have presented no evidence for your God claim. You have presented no evidence, therefore, that any particular of human discovery or invention can be attributed to your God claim.


What would count as evidence for you, of the validity of a "God claim"?
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Restorationist Groups

Post by _harmony »

marg wrote:Tommy may or may not believe anything of what he says. His comments just the same are being exposed for their poor critical thinking.


I'm just saying Tommy is a puppet; the thoughts he's expressing are not his own. He doesn't have any thoughts. Of course he's being exposed as a poor critical thinker; he isn't a thinker at all! The guy pulling his strings is the thinker, and I suspect he's just snickeringing because JAK's engaging his puppet as if he was real. Until JAK or you or Jersey engages the Mormons who actually believe what the puppet mocks them for believing, you're just dialoging with a marionette at a puppet show.

This reminds of something that happened at a puppet show I used to staff at work. The teens who worked the puppets would come out from behind the puppet stage with the puppets still on their arm, after the performance, and talk with the audience. One little girl, about 3, was so excited to see the dog puppet, she was overjoyed. She had a huge conversation with the dog puppet on my son's arm. She was talking to the dog, and never made the connection that he was just a piece of cloth that looked like a dog that my teenage son was wearing on his arm. She thought she was talking to the same dog who had entranced her so, during the performance.

That's what I'm seeing here. JAK is so determined to talk to Tommy, the puppet, he's forgetting that the guy whose pulling Tommy's strings is the real person, hidden though he may be. And I suspect the puppet's master doesn't believe a thing Tommy is saying. He might have once believed, but now he makes fun of the people who still believe. He's on JAK's side, which is why I find JAK's earnest conversation to be a little silly.

But carry on. We all must find our amusement where we can.
_marg

Re: Restorationist Groups

Post by _marg »

harmony wrote: But carry on. We all must find our amusement where we can.


I don't find it to be amusing. I don't find Tommy's post over the top, ridiculous or out of line with what a vast majority of Mormons actually think. Bednar's post on the other hand I did find amusing because he was so over the top, and it was the obvious extreme tongue in cheek absurdity to me which I found amusing.
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

I would be remiss if I did not say how much I enjoy Tommy's remarks---whomever may have his hand up his, uh, head.

I am almost as thankful for Tommy as I am for the moisture needed by all the farmers.

I would say more, but its hard to type with your arms folded (the proper way to show reverence).
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

I don't think Tommy is a puppet, I think he is just not coming from the same paradigm as most posters here. I enjoy his posts.

One was wonderfully bracing. It reminded me that I shouldn't let defending what I believe become such an all-encompassing concern that I turn from practice into debate.
"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
_grayskull
_Emeritus
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:36 pm

Post by _grayskull »

What would count as evidence for you, of the validity of a "God claim"?


I would have to be struck dumb and ran over in traffic.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

grayskull wrote:
What would count as evidence for you, of the validity of a "God claim"?


I would have to be struck dumb and ran over in traffic.


Sounds painful and counterproductive.
"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
_Tommy
_Emeritus
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:10 am

Post by _Tommy »

JAK,

I see you continue to rebel against the Lord.

Recognize:

1 The Protestant Reformation gave rise to your religious group.


Yes! Bruce R. McConkie taught that Martin Luther was inspired and was sent as an Elias to pave the way for the restoration.

2 Religious groups which have different fictions claim theirs is reliable.


Yes! And they all error, as Joseph Smith taught.

3 Realize that none is reliable in that they disagree with one another. So-called restoration groups have no more credibility than any other group which is a resultant following the 1517 CE Protestant Reformation period in religious evolution.


Yes again! The false restoration groups certainly are in error!

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution


Why that's strange. If I were an evolutionist, which I'm not, I would argue that evolution is both a fact and a theory. JAK, why is special relativity still called a theory when all experimental evidence supports it? Why is quantum mechanics and dynamics also often refered to as "quantum theory?" Is it because a "scientific theory" is typically used among scientists as an explanatory framework rather than the eighth-grade textbook usage of merely a well-supported hypothesis? Gravity is a fact, as all of us who have thrown pebbles off the top of the Church Office Building know, but there is also a "theory of Gravity" even though it is a fact.

There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago.


I agree completely, the earth is less than 7 thousand years old.

Your bias is irrelevant. Why? It lacks consensus which is fundamental to discovery. Also, it is fundamental in discovery that consensus is achieved by testing, skeptical review, further testing, and accumulation of additional evidence. It's an on-going and continuous process for reliable discovery.


The doctrines of the church have been tested through careful study and prayer by millions, including 15 living men who are prophets, seers, and revelators. Evolution has received nowhere near this kind of support.

Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results.


Which predictions of macroevolution has science tested repeatedly? I'm pretty curious about that one. How many men have been produced in laboratory conditions from evolving monkeys? Is this something that has been done hundreds or thousands of times over?

Discovery and consensus about information are continuous. Conclusions in science are tentative conclusions. That is, they are subject to skeptical review, and subject to further testing.


Ah, now this is interesting. At what point brother JAK, are conclusions in science considered facts? Was Newton's Theory of Gravity a fact during thousands of experiments which verified it, even though it was false all along? Isn't it also true that Evolution is open to further testing? Isn't it possible that Evolution could be falsified? I personally, firmly believe one day it will be shown that Satan planted the entire fossil record to deceive us.

Principles of physics are genuine discoveries. Generally, these principles are tested continuously and found to be reliable. Gravity is reliable (for example).


Oh they are? What about the nearly entire corpus of theoretical physics, JAK? What about String Theory? Quantum Loop Gravity? Twister Theory? M-Theory? K-Theory? Brane Theory? Which recent tests have found any of these theories reliable? And funny you should bring up Gravity as it's about top on the charts for why all this theoretical physics exists in the first place. Which theory of Gravity JAK, is entirely reliable? We all have hopes that when the Large Hadron Collider is running at full operational capacity that something from the last 30 years of theoretical physics might be tested but the prospects aren't entirely sunny. I personally hope that the LHC will shed light on the nature of our spirit bodies and how God can read our thoughts faster than the speed of light, but if not, I'll wait until the next life.

No evidence supports your claim regarding “the true gospel.” It’s another example of truth by assertion.


JAK, you can know for yourself it's true. But first you will have to soften your heart. Invite the Holy Spirit through prayer and fasting. And then sup upon the pages of Testaments, Old, New, and Other. Kneel down in a quiet place, and raise your voice to a loving Father in Heaven and ask him, humbly - do not, and I repeat, do not demand a sign - ask him for a witness of the truthfulness of this great Latter-Day work.

Now go ye forth, and do not procrastinate the day of your repentence.

Amen.
Post Reply