First, every person here has already had their worldview challenged, thank you very much. No special value in re-adjudicating the process by which all of us have had our worldviews shaken, and rebuilt. Blanket insults to the extent that this is an inherently biased place of one-sided bashers is a bit too reductionist, even for you, wouldn't you agree? The occasional point is valuable, but please don't kid yourself into believing that you are somehow offering the unique service of "challenging" anyone's world view on this forum.
Second, there is a big difference between an "echo chamber against the brethren" and an open forum for critical analysis of what the brethren say and do. What is your goal in insulting participants on a public forum dedicated, in part, to deconstructing the various teachings of self-proclaimed mouthpieces for God? If they speak the truth, it should withstand such scrutiny. If not, well then this forum does a huge service to the world.
It, along with others, were nothing burgers. I did respond to part of your post.There have been times where I think we’ve had a productive dialogue. Not so much recently.
It may a good decision for you to have me on ignore.
I see we’re in the ‘going in circles’ phase with Mental “fEeLiNgS iS eViDeNcE! mY FeElInGs aRe rEaL! I hAvE sPeCiaL kNowLedGe!” Gymnast now.
- Doc
As soon as there are no more posters to respond to I think it’s time to wrap this one up. People keep saying stuff though. It seems to be all about me at this point from the perspective of those that are still posting. I don’t think I’m worth that much attention. Enough already.
That’s what I’m talking about. If you folks could get together and present that evidence I think it would be worth the time. What are those potential evidences? Between the lot of you I think it would be interesting to see what you come up with.
Regards,
MG
A few examples would be gold plates with the story of Nephites and Lamanites on them. Papyri that actually told the story of Abraham. God or angels showing up to the world regularly showing a being claiming to be God exists.
So you’re more or less a show me a sign kind of guy.
A Thomas.
By the way, I think the jury is still out on the Book of Abraham.
That’s what I’m talking about. If you folks could get together and present that evidence I think it would be worth the time. What are those potential evidences? Between the lot of you I think it would be interesting to see what you come up with.
Regards,
MG
There would be no need to present or be locked into subjective bias. This seems to be a path that honorentheos, Lemmie might like to pursue. To be the positivist would be a challenge, I’m sure. But like you said, there may be some potential evidence that you might all come to agreement on for a personal God.
Regards,
MG
I'm not sure what you mean regarding being locked in to subjective biases. I suspect you mean I am not pretending to take the side of a believer and put up evidence that supports the existance of God. As to the other part, I think that consistency in the evidence for God would be convincing evidence.
That's how it's supposed to work, MG. Evidence that meaningfully contradicts other evidence tells us we don't have good reason for certainty. We are missing something so we are in the 50 category. One can't argue for evidence that is convincing but also not consistent.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
MG to Themis
So you’re more or less a show me a sign kind of guy.
A Thomas.
Yes, count me in that camp.....after all, Thomas DID get the evidence he asked for, no one else has. Why has Jesus changed? Or has this entire fairy tale been invented after all and written by faith promoting dough heads like those in our own day? If God is a personal God, he knows he can come and give me personal evidence. Heaven knows it's been my prayer for years, what's the hold up?
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
The same things I listed I my post to honorentheos. Scriptures, Fine Tuning, etc.
I address biases through being self aware knowing that it’s always possible to be mistaken. Always gathering and evaluating new information. Using information and cross compare with previous biases and determine whether or not I need/should adjust the way I think and/or approach life. In approaching the potential for error I think patience and forbearance are key. Jumping to hasty conclusions is never a good idea.
I know you are using words, but they don't really convey anything meaningful about how you are correcting for error or bias.
1. How would you expect to know or interact with a personal God if you believed in one?
Same way we do with all other people and things we interact with in life.
2. How did you determine that you do not have a Father in Heaven who loves you? That you’re not a child of God?
Same way I do with Santa Claus, big foot, Loch Ness, aliens, etc. Why don't you believe in them?
So you’re more or less a show me a sign kind of guy.
A Thomas.
No more then you. You suggest the spiritual is superior to the physical but cannot even describe how. Even the spiritual experience is asking for a sign. What does the church want people to do with the Book of Mormon? Pray about it and ask for a SIGN.
By the way, I think the jury is still out on the Book of Abraham.
Sorry but no. I've dealt with Robert a number of times years ago. He has no good evidence for the Book of Abraham and ignores the smoking guns against. WE have Joseph's claimed translation which is false. We have the text from which he claims the translation comes from. I suggest you stop making Joseph and God into dumb and dumber.
Robert Smith is someone who claims science, science, science and reason, reason, reason, then tries to put square Mormon pegs into round logical holes. He also will obfuscate when it suits him.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Robert Smith is someone who claims science, science, science and reason, reason, reason, then tries to put square Mormon pegs into round logical holes. He also will obfuscate when it suits him.
He spends no time on the papyri and Joseph's claims. He just looks for anything from ancient Egypt he thinks he can fit into Abraham. I can see why MG likes him, because he also has not spent anytime studying the papyri and it's claimed relationship to Abraham from Joseph Smith. Someone also forgot to tell them Abraham actually never existed as a real person. Nor did Adam, Noah, Moses. If that had been better understood back in the early 1800's I suspect Joseph would never have tried to connect them to his religious creations.
Robert Smith is someone who claims science, science, science and reason, reason, reason, then tries to put square Mormon pegs into round logical holes. He also will obfuscate when it suits him.
I dunno. I’ve read his stuff over the years. Seems to be at least as on the ball as any critic I’ve read.
