DiscussMormonism.com

On the paradigm topic, posters are making the statement "absolutely no room for doubt!" By both sides.

My question is this: How is the "absolutely no room for doubt" that the Church is NOT true seen by a critic as a completely permissable attitude, when "absolutely no room for doubt" that the Church IS true is labeled close minded, naïve, wrong, blind, brainwashed, etc.?

Why is "absolutely no room for doubt" a reasonable attitude one way, but not the other?

I don't think it is reasonable. Where did anyone else suggest so on that thread? Can you quote an instance of what you're referring to?

Most critics I've read on this board have, at one time or another, stated something to the effect that they hold it as possible that Mormonism is true.

The evidence against some of Mormonism's foundational claims render the proposition "Mormonism is true" far from plausible, however.

But, of course, there's room for doubt--for the critic.

But not for you, I surmise.

CKS

charity wrote:On the paradigm topic, posters are making the statement "absolutely no room for doubt!" By both sides.

My question is this: How is the "absolutely no room for doubt" that the Church is NOT true seen by a critic as a completely permissable attitude, when "absolutely no room for doubt" that the Church IS true is labeled close minded, naïve, wrong, blind, brainwashed, etc.?

Why is "absolutely no room for doubt" a reasonable attitude one way, but not the other?

I certainly have not made such a statement. There's room for doubt about a great many things, including whether there is a God, or whether there is such a thing as a spiritual experience. I am open to evidence of an objectively verificable nature, if you can provide it. Who knows, maybe some day I'll have my own spiritual experience.

What is not in doubt, however, is that Mormonism is a fraud. Ok, maybe some doubt, but we're talking .00001 probability that it's true. That's not much probability, but it's something to cling on to if one has a mind to.

Well, saying there is absolutely no room for doubt in anything is kinda silly. Maybe both the critics AND the TBMS are wrong. Maybe Joseph Smith was a space alien. It's just that the the most concrete evidence is piled up on the critics side. Sure, maybe the TBMs are right. And maybe the ancients were correct about the Earth being the center of the Universe. Astronomers are always discovering new things, so there is a chance.

SatanWasSetUp wrote:Maybe Joseph Smith was a space alien.

So THAT'S the answer! I knew it! I just knew it!

On the paradigm topic, posters are making the statement "absolutely no room for doubt!" By both sides.

CFR. I performed a search with your quoted phrase, and found nothing. In reading the last few pages of the thread, I saw a statement by Pokatator that said "without a doubt", and I personally find that untenable if it is taken literally.

So, I'm anxious to hear the other examples.... specifically the ones that you quoted.

cacheman

charity wrote:On the paradigm topic, posters are making the statement "absolutely no room for doubt!" By both sides.

My question is this: How is the "absolutely no room for doubt" that the Church is NOT true seen by a critic as a completely permissable attitude, when "absolutely no room for doubt" that the Church IS true is labeled close minded, naïve, wrong, blind, brainwashed, etc.?

Why is "absolutely no room for doubt" a reasonable attitude one way, but not the other?

Religious mythologies are unreliable. Ancient scripts for various religions are not in agreement. Hence, they are unreliable. Doubt is the father of discovery. Without skeptical review of information, evidence, and the testing of the findings, there would be no discovery.

Mormonism is a very late mythology in the history of myth which masquerades as explanation.

Doubt and exploration provides you with your computer, medical science and treatment, and every other discovery which has reliability. While one can clearly confirm that we humans will learn more as new discoveries are made, that knowledge will not come from ancient or more recent myths such as Mormon dogma.

JAK

charity wrote:On the paradigm topic, posters are making the statement "absolutely no room for doubt!" By both sides.

My question is this: How is the "absolutely no room for doubt" that the Church is NOT true seen by a critic as a completely permissable attitude, when "absolutely no room for doubt" that the Church IS true is labeled close minded, naïve, wrong, blind, brainwashed, etc.?

Why is "absolutely no room for doubt" a reasonable attitude one way, but not the other?

I didn't see anything like that on the other thread. I'm certainly open to the possibility that I'm dead wrong about Mormonism. Some days I wish I was wrong. But then that feeling passes.

charity,

I haven't been following the threads you're on. I, too, would like to see some quotes in context when you have time.

None of you really think Mrs. Straw here has the faintest clue what she is talking about, do you?

If she's breathing, she's conjuring up another straw man. This is what she does.

The fact is all things are not equal. Contrary to charity's wishful thinking, critics do not generally approach LDS issues with an "absolutely no room for doubt that the Church isn't true" perspective. They operate on what teh evidnece supports, but are usually willing to hear new evidence if it can be presented. Most critics I know are willing to be dissuaded from their assumptions if a case can be made. But the problem is that the apologetic position is often an intellectually bankrupt endeavor, and compelling arguments from them are almost non-existent. It usually falls back on the hopes that God will come and strike the critic down with a spiritual confirmation.

Expect many more mind-numbing threads to come from charity, and don't expect her to ever answer to a CFR.