subgenius wrote:My mistake and apologies........i think i just fed the troll.
My confusion with Polly's post was how she seemed to mock the concept of spirituality then went after Mormon's and the Book of Mormon by saying its not even spiritual. So is she opposed to spirituality or opposed to the Book of Mormon because its not spiritual? What is spiritual to her?
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
The Nehor wrote: I did not know that. I have never chatted with him/her so have no idea.
I never have chatted with then either yet still figured it out. :)
That hypothesis works until you factor in at times knowing the future. Then you need a more complex explanation.
Not really. Knowing the future or having a feeling/premonition of the future is quite common, even more so with some groups. The problem is showing reliability.
Don't know. So far it's 100% for me.
An assertion you never intended to back up, or provide new ones to be tested. I hope you don't tell people this at church. I have never seen any church leader make this claim as you do, but then I have seen this from you and a couple of other hobby apologists. I have no doubt you believe it. It is easy when one deludes themselves by reinterpreting the misses so that they are now hits, or that is wasn't really a premonition from God. Even if it was possible to see the future I am not sure why divinity would need be a requirement.
stemelbow wrote: It’s a weird tactic among critics around these parts to complain on one hand that LDS apologists won’t be swayed by their arguments to the point of giving up the faith, but then on the other hand complain LDS apologists actually consider reasonable evidence and change their position to be somewhat different from the regular TBM (who also happens to be maligned here). In this, we can’t win.
I wouldn't assume most critics do this, but I have come to expect it from you. Before I even became an unbeliever many beliefs like literal global flood(which by the way is still current doctrine of the church) were not accurate. I certainly think is is a good thing that many members do adjust their beliefs based on evidence even if they can't make it all the way. I do sometimes bring up some of the inconsistencies that may results from some of those changes. I personally see the church changing over time even if to slowly for me. I think before I pass on, as long as it's due to old age, that most members will have abandoned belief in a historical Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham. That's just my prediction.
Well of course. Faith in general appears suspect on that basis. How could there possibly have been a Jesus who came back to life and in so doing made it possible for all those who die to be resurrected and live forever? If we’re sticking strictly with the “well there’s no visible evidence of your faith claims therefore you are wrong” then there’s no reason to dialogue between faith promoters and faith opposers.
You might try reading the post for comprehension first. They said evdience that contradicts beliefs, not that they just lacked evdience. Lack of evidence is sufficient for the investigator to reject claimed beliefs, not necessarily for the person who already believes.
Sure.
I thought the link about Star Wars apologetics is such a good example of the kind of thinking you and other apologists are doing.
stemelbow wrote: It’s a weird tactic among critics around these parts to complain on one hand that LDS apologists won’t be swayed by their arguments to the point of giving up the faith, but then on the other hand complain LDS apologists actually consider reasonable evidence and change their position to be somewhat different from the regular TBM (who also happens to be maligned here). In this, we can’t win.
I wouldn't assume most critics do this, but I have come to expect it from you.
Huh? You expect from me to complain about LDS apologists who consider reasonable evidence and change their position but also complain that LDS apologists won’t be swayed by arguments? Oh brother.
You might try reading the post for comprehension first. They said evdience that contradicts beliefs, not that they just lacked evdience. Lack of evidence is sufficient for the investigator to reject claimed beliefs, not necessarily for the person who already believes.
I caught that. I think you misunderstand me again.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote: Huh? You expect from me to complain about LDS apologists who consider reasonable evidence and change their position but also complain that LDS apologists won’t be swayed by arguments? Oh brother.
You really do have reading comprehension problems. You were complaining about critic tactics which I said you shouldn't assume most critics do. Unfortunately you like to whine a lot about things most don't even do.
I caught that. I think you misunderstand me again.
I based in on what you said. Here it is
If we’re sticking strictly with the “well there’s no visible evidence of your faith claims therefore you are wrong” then there’s no reason to dialogue between faith promoters and faith opposers.
This is what you were responding to
The act of desperately attempting to explain away evidences that contradict one's assumptions or beliefs makes the assumptions or beliefs begin to appear suspect...
Themis wrote:You really do have reading comprehension problems. You were complaining about critic tactics which I said you shouldn't assume most critics do. Unfortunately you like to whine a lot about things most don't even do.
Well that would make more sense. But you did say, "I wouldn't assume most critics do this, but I have come to expect it from you." "this" references the comments I made. "It" references "this", so while you wish to fault me, it was your fault. But I can easily forgive and not use this example as some overall complaint about your abilities. I'll consider it a mistake, instead of going about the less charitable way of belittling and condescending (a common MO here).
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Themis wrote:You really do have reading comprehension problems. You were complaining about critic tactics which I said you shouldn't assume most critics do. Unfortunately you like to whine a lot about things most don't even do.
Well that would make more sense. But you did say, "I wouldn't assume most critics do this, but I have come to expect it from you." "this" references the comments I made. "It" references "this", so while you wish to fault me, it was your fault. But I can easily forgive and not use this example as some overall complaint about your abilities. I'll consider it a mistake, instead of going about the less charitable way of belittling and condescending (a common MO here).
Ya this tactic. Not to hard to understand, and when it comes to condescending you are no saint. I don't mean to be condescending, but it's hard not to comment on soemthing I see you doing all the time.
