tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post381251895998720607..comments2023-05-26T01:08:22.886-07:00Comments on The Religion Virus: Mormonism is WrongCraig A. Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-15757119055562312362013-03-07T00:20:01.504-08:002013-03-07T00:20:01.504-08:00Your formula is incorrect because there are no var...Your formula is incorrect because there are no variables. All you are saying is if a is 1 then 2 is b and 3 is c then you are obiviously going to get to four. And that logic is just common sense. But the example you use is addiction which there many people who have a particle of faith and humble themselves before god and that is a recipe for success is just crazy. Because many have failed and continued to be junkies. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-62367319399865448782010-08-13T16:27:55.744-07:002010-08-13T16:27:55.744-07:00Tony -- You completely avoided the topic of the bl...Tony -- You completely avoided the topic of the blog itself and were sidetracked by Seth's comments. So I'll give you the same challenge I gave Seth, and which he sidestepped neatly over and over again. Show us some reasonable evidence that the Book of Mormon, or any of the teachings of the LDS Church, are supported by facts. The Book of Mormon is full of assertions that can be shown to be factually false, and many books have been written about that. The Mormon apologists consistently use the most contrived and implausible excuses as to why these factual errors could be true given a long chain of highly improbably what-ifs. The key to any amazing claim is strong evidence, and that evidence is completely absent.<br /><br />I wouldn't care about Mormonism except that you guys screw up so many things for so many people. The Mormon Church's blatant and probably illegal campaign for Proposition 8 in California was inexcusable, and was deeply offensive to all who care about their fellow citizens' rights.<br /><br />So I have every right to call your beliefs into question. Mind your own business and I'll mind mine. But when you send lobbyists to my state to screw up my friends' lives, and when you send missionaries to Africa to screw up that continent even more than it already is, I have every right to take you to task.<br /><br />I'm not the one spreading bigotry. The LDS Church is. I'm just trying to make the world a more moral, rational place, and religions that make amazing claims about their scriptures, and use those scriptures to harm their fellow man, are my target.<br /><br />So, will you step up to the plate with evidence, or sidestep like Seth did?Craig A. Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-7975525225597268282010-08-13T10:13:12.879-07:002010-08-13T10:13:12.879-07:00Can anyone truly imagine if Joseph Smith just made...Can anyone truly imagine if Joseph Smith just made up the Book of Mormon? To quote Hugh Nibley “What a hilarious document this will turn out to be! What an impossible tangle of oriental vagaries, what threads and tatters of half-baked narrative losing themselves in contradictory masses, what an exuberance of undisciplined fancies flying off at wild tangents! What a wealth of irrelevant sermonizing at unexpected moments (as in the Koran), what a collection of bizarre conceits and whopping contradictions it must be! Surely all one needs to do is to cite a page of the stuff—any page—to expose the whole business;…. Instead of an opium dream, we find an exceedingly sober document, that never flies off at tangents, never loses the thread of the narrative (which is often quite complicated), is totally lacking in oriental color, in which the sermons are confined to special sections, and which, strangest of all, never runs into contradictions.”<br /><br />Now let’s say for a moment that one has read and asked if the Book of Mormon is true. If the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph Smith was a true prophet and the Priesthood is true, Temples are true and the life saving ordinances are true and it all is here today along with a living modern day prophet. What do you say Craig? You think someone is going to give that all up because you happen to be wallowing around in disbelief and wrote a book about it? <br /><br />Ok, the Homosexual thing in California. Homosexuality is not a race, culture, religion or country. As far as I’m concerned it’s Nature “Offline”. It’s a perversion. It’s not natural and it is wrong / incorrect and unclean. Obama has sustained and made the decision to dedicate the month of June to be the Gay, Lesbian and Transgender appreciation month. They claim in diversity comes strength. What is going on here? What about the family unit and straight people? What about their success and strength? Understand this Craig, though I do not appreciate homosexual tendencies or life styles, I love them and treat them the way I would want to be treated. That is all I can do. I do not judge them as the Judge of Isreal, I simply understand that homosexuality is wrong as is beastiality and without getting into detail, it’s gross and disgusting.<br /><br />You know Craig, if you don’t believe in UFOs or the chupacabra and write a book about it, that would be one thing. However, to be so public with blogs and a book, to earn monetary prophet, to exhaust so much effort against “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint” simply because you don’t believe it? Because you never studied it to ponder if it’s true or ask for the Holy Spirit to manifest the truth to you? Have you only studied it to bash it and ridicule it? I still have hope for you because you’re still alive to make change for the good.<br /><br />Now Craig seems to slam Seth on every occasion. What’s got you so jealous Craig? Steve chimes in with a “that a boy Craig we got him cornered”. You two enjoy each other because misery loves company. What are your qualifications to judge the Mormon Church or any religion Craig? What are you doing in your life as far as goodness or righteousness? I just see lip service. To not believe in God is one thing, to actively go against him is very dangerous in a very eternal way. <br /><br />Keep up the good comments Seth, you have a fan here. As a matter of fact, if you wrote a book, I’d read it. Sorry Craig, sorry that you believe so strongly in nothing….<br /><br />-TonyTonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15846636615385215373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-10391397476743850922010-08-13T10:12:25.254-07:002010-08-13T10:12:25.254-07:00Wow,
Craig? Steve?... What are you guys doing? ...Wow, <br /><br />Craig? Steve?... What are you guys doing? You really seem to be tag teaming Seth. Seth I commend you for your comments and want you to know that I agree. I also commend you for maintaining composure after Craig and Steve’s sarcastic and goofy remarks.<br /><br />Many non believers seem to live and walk the path of least resistance. I work with some. I never feel enriched by my conversations with them and for the most part they are self serving. Religion is important. It must be. Man has only been worshiping God and his Son since we’ve been placed on this Earth. We have been placed on this Earth to live the Gospel, choose the right and love one another. Saying that is easy, actually doing it is rare amongst most people today. The LDS Church does that. Priesthood, Elder’s Quarum and Relief Society go out visit their families once a month and care for them. Are all the members perfect? No.<br /><br />We are all imperfect human beings, including all of our prophets from the time of Adam. We are all subject to choose the wrong. I believe that while we live our lives righteously, our body actually forges and changes the condition of our spirit. These changes make one more able to accept the rewards and responsibilities one would receive in God’s Kingdom.<br /><br />I find it peculiar to here people try to use science to disprove God or his Son. God and Christ are the Grand Master’s of all the science. They have full command of all the elements. We have 10 pieces of a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle and we think we know exactly what the big picture is?<br /><br />The Book of Mormon is true, but it is not designed to be proven to someone by means of physical evidences or by word of mouth. When someone bears their testimony of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ or the Book of Mormon, it serves as a sign of hope to others that God listens and answers our prayers and will make himself know to each and everyone of us who worthily seek. Heavenly Father is not some kind of a hidden Top Secret trick, nor is His Son or Holy Ghost.<br />-TonyTonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15846636615385215373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-87903953106408517412010-07-28T11:55:14.733-07:002010-07-28T11:55:14.733-07:00Seth you said,
"It is when they leave that b...Seth you said,<br /><br />"It is when they leave that basic "I don't believe in God position" and go on to make positive truth claims like "Mormons are brainwashed" or "religious people are stupid" that they give up all rights to the non-position label. Now they DO have a burden of proof."<br /><br />"you have conveniently left out here that what I was debating on the other thread was not whether Mormonism is true, but rather whether it is obviously ridiculous."<br /><br />and THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MY POST WAS CALLED!!!!!!!!!!! A "PROOF" that mormonism is "REDICULOUS." If there is a god he will punish you for lying. Now answer me, I implore you, for your very soul is on the line.<br /><br />-LeoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-3587701344069626092010-07-10T12:54:10.158-07:002010-07-10T12:54:10.158-07:00I ignored you because you were off topic to what I...I ignored you because you were off topic to what I was arguing.<br /><br />You could make a compelling argument for supporting free-market capitalism and I would likewise ignore you. Just having what you think is a compelling argument isn't a reason for me to debate with you. Needs to be on topic. And to get me involved, it needs to be on topic to what I'm currently debating. Since you haven't provided anything, you still don't get a cookie.<br /><br />Sorry.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-89489375382576540952010-07-10T04:24:33.343-07:002010-07-10T04:24:33.343-07:00Wow, you guys were right. I made a compelling argu...Wow, you guys were right. I made a compelling argument that Mormonism is ridiculous and he totally ignored me. I should have insulted him if I wanted to converse.<br /><br />Seth, I didn't steal my argument from anyone, I am not an LDS member (I lied suspecting you wouldn't engage my argument if I did not.) I heard the story of Joseph Smith from my best friend (who was Mormon) and converted him to Agnosticism in a single day. He is now a happy atheist and still my best friend. I also converted an LDS missionary while visiting Utah (I know, a missionary in Utah sounds redundant but its true.)<br /><br />Please (I am still begging you) to address the two posts I made earlier instead of saying that I stole the idea. <br /><br /><br />-Leo<br /><br />P.S. I am undefeated in competitive Lincoln-Douglas debate, perhaps now you find me "worth" debating. It should stand to my credit that you thought my posts were stolen and I have tried not to insult you or be mean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-25755188634244210492010-07-08T06:23:48.473-07:002010-07-08T06:23:48.473-07:00Steve, the personal attacks have been flowing from...Steve, the personal attacks have been flowing from both directions here. You have been pretty consistent in your own attempts to make this argument about me personally rather than the issues.<br /><br />I've been pretty consistent about what I am, and am not, here to argue. You are the one who keeps trying to change the subject and get me to argue about something else. Then you whine incessantly when people don't deign to argue on ground of your choosing. It's not that I don't have arguments to make. It's just that I don't consider you to be someone worth making them to. Since you have nothing new to offer, I don't see much point in responding to you.<br /><br />Let me know when you actually have an argument to make.<br /><br />Note: I mentioned earlier that we'd have to wait an see if Steve was capable of making an argument without resorting to angry labels like "liar." He's shifted the terminology to "lawyer tricks" - but I think the point is more than settled that Steve is indeed mentally incapable of making an argument without accusing his opponent of this kind of stuff.<br /><br />Thanks Steve, it's been somewhat of a pleasure to see you at work.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-12335002933275069862010-07-08T06:06:09.865-07:002010-07-08T06:06:09.865-07:00Seth,
Although not proof, the evidence strongly s...Seth,<br /><br />Although not proof, the evidence strongly suggests you are correct with respect to being an attorney. What our latest response really demonstrates is that when pressed, Seth Rogers is actually able to muster a little evidence to support his position; namely that when I questioned your academic qualifications, then you were Johnny-on-the-spot supplying information. What I find so frustrating about you is that nothing penetrates, for, when it comes to your book, you are one of those who will never once yield to evidence or reason. And then you attempt some red-herring of a rant about commas, yet we both know that commas were not what I was referring to; nope, it was your ability to synthesize your thoughts. Honestly, your ability to reason is questionable, and your inability to spot reasoning errors is what I was referring to; as such, here is are some perfect examples from your last post:<br /><br />1. “Steve has been a literal grab-bag of comedic value and he still doesn't get it.” – Can you say, the fallacy of personal attack? To date, I remain uncertain as to what I don’t get; we both know a blatant absurdity. <br /><br />2. “You are, of course, entitled to that opinion. And I'm entitled to mine.” As the philosopher Jamie Whyte points our in the book, “Crimes Against Logic,” “The fallacy lies in [your] assumption that this retort is somehow a satisfactory reply to [our] objections, while, in fact, it is completely irrelevant.” Oh yes, in other words, this is merely a pre-emptive defense – and quite arguably falling into the subjectivist’s fallacy too. Sorry, Seth, this doesn’t work, and you wonder why I question your ability to reason.<br /><br />3. “But if you think a self-congratulatory little atheist rah-rah session like this is going to merit a spirited defense of the faith, you are going to be disappointed.” Here – and there were many of these – we have a classic straw man fallacy. Indeed, let’s manufacture a false argument and then attack it vigorously.<br /><br />4. And the of course there were these admittedly difficult to classify, but nonetheless blatant reasoning errors:<br /><br />a. “I never considered either of you worth such a response from the get-go.” Sort of reminds me of parts of the Canterbury Tales…<br /><br />b. “Now... you and Steve have fun consoling each other. Maybe a few YouTube videos of a heavily edited Hitchens debate will do the trick.”<br /><br />c. “And just a suggestion - perhaps you will want to stick to holding non-positions next time. When you actually try to assert positive positions, things do not seem to work out so well for you.”<br /><br />This is astonishing, really; indeed, and I am the one supposedly providing the comedic value here? Seth, as I noted, your lawyer tricks and subterfuge might work on less-educated people, but, as you have seen, they don’t work here. Here’s a thought my blinkered buddy, learn to think properly and then come back to us one day, okay?Steve Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-58772670224584718412010-07-07T23:07:25.862-07:002010-07-07T23:07:25.862-07:00I'm not sure how many times I'm going to h...I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to repeat to you that I am not here to convince you that Mormonism is true. But rest assured, you have about exhausted all the freebies you are going to get here.<br /><br />Steve, if you think this entire exchange has reflected well on you or your position... well... who am I to burst your bubble?<br /><br />Craig, if either of you feel I haven't put much into this exchange, you are absolutely right. I never felt that anything said here was worth much of a serious response. So flippant one-liners are about the best you can expect. This blog has been an amusing diversion, but little else. Steve has been a literal grab-bag of comedic value and he still doesn't get it.<br /><br />If you're done with this exchange, I am as well. No doubt you think your cause has been well-served here. You are, of course, entitled to that opinion. And I'm entitled to mine.<br /><br />But if you think a self-congratulatory little atheist rah-rah session like this is going to merit a spirited defense of the faith, you are going to be disappointed. I never considered either of you worth such a response from the get-go. So quit asking for it. You don't deserve one, you wouldn't know what to do with one if it were given to you, and above all - you don't really want one.<br /><br />This discussion has been a waste of time for both of us. And it has exhausted whatever frivolous entertainment value it held for me.<br /><br />So, unless you have anything particularly compelling to offer, I think I might as well leave things here.<br /><br />Now... you and Steve have fun consoling each other. Maybe a few YouTube videos of a heavily edited Hitchens debate will do the trick.<br /><br />And just a suggestion - perhaps you will want to stick to holding non-positions next time. When you actually try to assert positive positions, things do not seem to work out so well for you.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-57982114625740625442010-07-07T21:52:26.650-07:002010-07-07T21:52:26.650-07:00Hope fully this doesn't post twice:
Well, if ...Hope fully this doesn't post twice:<br /><br />Well, if you are Seth D. Rogers of Longmont, CO. then I do stand corrected, but the website you provided was useless. So, if true, then I do apologize; indeed, it's not so hard to admit when you're wrong. However, I cannot stress this enough: if what you have provided here on this website is demonstrative of your ability to reason, then, goodness me, I’d rather go pro bono. Do people really fall for this smoke and mirrors excrement? If true, it is astonishing to me that someone can go through so many years of higher education and accept religion at face value. This fact alone only helps to prove Craig’s points. In the most unequivocal terms, here is where you have failed:<br /><br />1. You have failed to establish that the Book of Mormon is either ancient or authored by numerous people. To make this claim without providing some sort of empirical evidence or radiometric dating is, indeed, circular reasoning.<br /><br />2. Aside from you illogical and annoying word games, you have yet to provide any compelling reason for anyone to accept your claims regarding your position with respect to steel, weaponry or battle sites. Oh, yes, there are battle sites but they aren’t any Mormon battle sites.<br /><br />3. You have failed entirely to muster any viable counter arguments to the archaeological evidence which clearly demonstrates the anachronisms embedded within your book.<br /><br />4. We haven’t discussed the genetics but I feel reasonably certain that we’ll see more of the same; however, please feel free to prove me wrong.<br /><br />Here are the facts, Seth: you are willing to accept at face value a book which has zero evidence to support it, yet you’ll make the ridiculous claim that we atheists have drank the Kool-Aid; astonishing really… All that any free-thinking atheist asks for is evidence, and nothing more. If we’re so good at drinking the beverages then why would we reject your claims? Think about it, Seth; if you have any ability to be honest with yourself, then you have to realize the tenuousness of your position. As Craig noted, your lawyer word games might work on others, but they are, most assuredly, falling short here.Steve Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-16422062640608724572010-07-07T21:44:08.135-07:002010-07-07T21:44:08.135-07:00Well, if you are Seth D. Rogers of Longmont, CO. t...Well, if you are Seth D. Rogers of Longmont, CO. then I do stand corrected, but the website you provided was useless. So, if true, then I do apologize; indeed, it's not so hard to admit when you're wrong. However, I cannot stress this enough: if what you have provided here on this website is demonstrative of your ability to reason, then, goodness me, I’d rather go pro bono. Do people really fall for this smoke and mirrors excrement? If true, it is astonishing to me that someone can go through so many years of higher education and accept religion at face value. This fact alone only helps to prove Craig’s points. In the most unequivocal terms, here is where you have failed:<br /><br />1. You have failed to establish that the Book of Mormon is either ancient or authored by numerous people. To make this claim without providing some sort of empirical evidence or radiometric dating is, indeed, circular reasoning.<br /><br />2. Aside from you illogical and annoying word games, you have yet to provide any compelling reason for anyone to accept your claims regarding your position with respect to steel, weaponry or battle sites. Oh, yes, there are battle sites but they aren’t any Mormon battle sites.<br /><br />3. You have failed entirely to muster any viable counter arguments to the archaeological evidence which clearly demonstrates the anachronisms embedded within your book.<br /><br />4. We haven’t discussed the genetics but I feel reasonably certain that we’ll see more of the same; however, please feel free to prove me wrong.<br /><br />Here are the facts, Seth: you are willing to accept at face value a book which has zero evidence to support it, yet you’ll make the ridiculous claim that we atheists have drank the Kool-Aid; astonishing really… All that any free-thinking atheist asks for is evidence, and nothing more. If we’re so good at drinking the beverages then why would we reject your claims? Think about it, Seth; if you have any ability to be honest with yourself, then you have to realize the tenuousness of your position. As Craig noted, your lawyer word games might work on others, but they are most assuredly falling short here.Steve Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-21055011256609105512010-07-07T21:13:34.866-07:002010-07-07T21:13:34.866-07:00Nope, sorry, it's a dependent clause; I should...Nope, sorry, it's a dependent clause; I should have used a semi-colon. Again, Seth, I am not talking about proof-reading, am I? We all make typos but - perhaps you should look the words up - I am referring to syntax and reasoning.Steve Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-60875053251087006352010-07-07T20:36:02.198-07:002010-07-07T20:36:02.198-07:00"As I have noted, your reasoning, prose and s..."As I have noted, your reasoning, prose and syntax are not those of an educated person, sorry, but you'll have to prove that one to me, as well."<br /><br />You should have finished with a period after the word "person" in that sentence Steve. Not a comma.<br /><br />If you like, I could go back and proofread your previous comments. I had a lot of practice as a law review editor. If you'd like, you can read a casenote I wrote analyzing the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on First Unitarian Church vs. Salt Lake City Corp:<br /><br />"A forum by any other name ... would be just as confusing: the Tenth Circuit dismisses intent from the public forum." (First Unitarian Church v. Salt Lake City Corp., 308 F.3d 1114, 10th Cir. 20002.) 4 Wyo. L. Rev. 753-793 (2004).<br /><br />http://law.wustl.edu/Library/CILP/cilp0716jour.html<br /><br />Just go there, press control(F) and type in "Seth"<br /><br />What have you published Steve?Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-27678983102415349342010-07-07T20:06:56.615-07:002010-07-07T20:06:56.615-07:00Seth,
It's as I thought; you have been and re...Seth,<br /><br />It's as I thought; you have been and remain incapable of putting together an argument. And, oh yeah, I believe you're an attorney, like I believe the moon is made of cheese. As I have noted, your reasoning, prose and syntax are not those of an educated person, sorry, but you'll have to prove that one to me, as well.Steve Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-47023163993072089242010-07-07T17:46:30.859-07:002010-07-07T17:46:30.859-07:00Craig, any time anything remotely resembling a rea...Craig, any time anything remotely resembling a real debate emerges on this blog, be sure to let me know will you?Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-69604295524764303622010-07-07T17:45:26.219-07:002010-07-07T17:45:26.219-07:00The mere fact that you think you've come to kn...The mere fact that you think you've come to know me in only two weeks worth of discussion online speaks volumes about the quality of your views here Steve.<br /><br />It's OK. I've made my point sufficient that others can get it - even if you don't.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-34737563619455081422010-07-07T17:43:50.259-07:002010-07-07T17:43:50.259-07:00Seth, you apparently don't realize that this i...Seth, you apparently don't realize that this isn't a court of law, and that using your lawyer tricks doesn't impress anyone. The truth is that you're not up to the challenge of a real debate. You keep claiming some sort of victory in this debate, but you haven't given a single cogent argument, just a bunch of obfuscation and self congratulations. Like, where was "demonstrably" thrown in anyone's face? Certainly not by you.<br /><br />I think your real goal is to have the last word. Any time anyone posts a comment, you can't resist replying. So that's my final challenge ... are you capable of letting someone else have the last word? Or is that too much for you?Craig A. Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-3849527744781928282010-07-07T17:40:51.230-07:002010-07-07T17:40:51.230-07:00Nope, Seth, we both know this isn't true, at a...Nope, Seth, we both know this isn't true, at all. The fact that you fail to understand what constitutes evidence, doesn't automatically make your position right. Sorry, you didn't even come close, and it's astonishing that you think you did. As I noted, and will keep noting: Mormonism is demonstrably false - only the most obtuse can believe such blatant nonsense. Your last statement is, quite frankly, expected from your ilk, but to state atheists can't prove anything is, as we both know, quite silly. Anyone can prove something, it just requires evidence - something you have failed to provide. This is the old Seth that I have come to know and love...Steve Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-39774628178143893272010-07-07T17:22:02.981-07:002010-07-07T17:22:02.981-07:00Well, let's see...
The last round we had, you...Well, let's see...<br /><br />The last round we had, you pretty much had the "demonstrably" part thrown in your face, and then Craig tried to bail you out by shifting the burden of "proving" Mormonism to me.<br /><br />Yes, I remember that. It was rather amusing.<br /><br />Atheists usually tend to fall on their face when they actually try to assert something. Their position is strongest when they merely sit back, sneer unpleasantly, and constantly remark "you can't prove that."Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-85911795444418240442010-07-07T16:54:02.413-07:002010-07-07T16:54:02.413-07:00As I noted, and will continue to note, Mormonism i...As I noted, and will continue to note, Mormonism is demonstrably false; the evidence tells us this. Unless, of course, you'd like to dance a another logical jig?Steve Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-13900083537287507142010-07-07T16:13:11.911-07:002010-07-07T16:13:11.911-07:00Which I already told you Craig, I'm not intere...Which I already told you Craig, I'm not interested in doing. As I have made plain from the beginning. I only dropped in on this thread because you were misrepresenting what the earlier discussion was about.<br /><br />I have no interest in proving Mormonism to anyone here. I was merely addressing Steve's claim that the whole thing is "obviously" fraudulent. That's it. The end.<br /><br />And if you remember, we did discuss some examples. And I'm just fine with where that debate ended. How about you?Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-29591817852572058992010-07-07T15:23:10.057-07:002010-07-07T15:23:10.057-07:00Seth - You haven't addressed any of the challe...Seth - You haven't addressed any of the challenges that I made, so here's an idea. Pick any one of the main claims of Mormonism that's likely to seem impossible to an atheist. Tell us what it is, and what evidence supports it, and we'll have a frank and respectful discussion of the merits of that claim. To be interesting, it should be a claim that can be addressed by science and history, like "Jesus came to America" rather than something unprovable like "There is a Heaven."Craig A. Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569974341270668010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-50556393383369497172010-07-07T14:58:36.210-07:002010-07-07T14:58:36.210-07:00Seth,
You are actually funny, hoorah! I literall...Seth,<br /><br />You are actually funny, hoorah! I literally laughed out loud. This is hilarious, "Enjoy having your Sundays off" I mean this with the utmost sincerity. At any rate, I freely admit that I changed the subject, but I'm more than willing to get back to the conversation at hand; provided, that we can actually speak and not insult one another...Steve Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3381224391260954323.post-78320683125246122442010-07-07T11:28:13.860-07:002010-07-07T11:28:13.860-07:00Leo, if you are relying on a stupid Internet argum...Leo, if you are relying on a stupid Internet argument to save your faith, I can say right now that your faith doesn't have much of a chance. You've already made up your mind, so I suggest you get on with it.<br /><br />Enjoy having your Sundays off.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.com