--Introduction

Two recent threads have gone up and been filled in relatively short order detailing my personal account of a memorable interaction I had with Sandra Tanner of Utah Lighthouse Ministry,, during which she showed no willigness to subject Christianity to the same rigid empirical standards of scientific and historical critique that she does Mormonism.

Both threads can be read here:

(http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1955559,1955559#msg-1955559; and http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1955811,1955811#msg-1955811)


During poster exchanges (which were, at times, engagingly wild and wooly), efforts were made, in some cases, to:

1. promote the scientifically-debunked notion of a catastrophic worldwide flood during the days of Noah;

2. argue for the alleged credibility of pseudo-scientific creationism pedaled under the guise of scientific empiricism;

3, attack those who dispute the Christian claim of an historical Messiah as being in the clutches of Satan;

4.ignore Christ’s teachings against making such personal attacks, even though they also invoked Jesus's teachings when it suited their purposes; and

5. call scientific sinners to salvation by urging them to embrace Jesus.

Let’s go through these categories relatively briefly, with attention applied to sourcing in the name of accuracy:

This will be done by quoting and sourcing the contributions of RfM poster “Tall Man, Short Hair” (to whom I refer as “Tall Tales, Short Facts”).

A. The Supposed Global Reality of “Noah’s Flood"

-Quote: “My point here is to demonstrate there actually is some foundation for a story regarding an ancient flood.”


-My reply: That is no proof for the Biblical myth that Noah’s Flood universally covered the earth and killed all humans and animals except a small clump holding out in an ark for 40 days in an ark that God taught them how to build during a divine rain delay. In reality, that notion is a long-held myth among both Christians and Mormons--one that has been thoroughly debunked by modern science.

(see “Problems with a Global Flood,” by Mark Isaak, 2nd ed., 1998, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.htmll and “Noah's Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions,” by Duane E. Jeffery, “Sunstone” magazine, Issue 134, October 2004, pp. 27ff, https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/issues/134.pdf)


B. The Claims of Christianity Have More Foundational Evidence Than the Findings of Science

-Quote: “So bluster all you wish, but the real world is not comprised of clever rhetoric. It actually exists, and life had an origin, . . . . [W]hen you declare ‘there is no god and nothing supernatural,’ you lock yourself in a room from which there is no reasonable, logical escape . . . . [and] that . . . . unlike that of the Christians, has no foundation in history or science upon which to support essential elements . . . [T]here is currently exactly the same amount of evidence supporting that assertion as there is supporting a talking donkey. And simply invoking ‘science’ is not scientific without any evidence to support that claim. . . . Christianity is] a belief that actually has significant elements of it that have been shown to actually exist in the real world.”


-My reply: As noted above in Section A, the Bible's alleged so-called global "Noachian Flood" is a tall tale that is unsupported by any credible foundation of scientific evidence; indeed, that Judeo-Christian fable has been convincingly disproven by modern scientific research.


C. Mature Christian Advocates Who are Prepared to Defend Their Faith Against Science and Do Not Ridicule or Criticize Their Opponents

-Quote: “If you're going to actually embrace atheism to the point that you ridicule and criticize the beliefs of others, why not pull on your big boy pants and actually be prepared to answer some of the questions that are implicit in that worldview?”


-My reply: See Section E


D. Relying on “Miracles," “Rather than Materials, to “Prove” the “Historical” Messiah

Advocating in favor of the contestable theory that his Jesus messiah was an actual historical figure, "Tall Tales, Short Facts" admits that he bases his beliefs for that belief on the supernatural, not on science:

Quote: “. . . [T]here likely was some person who served as the palette from which the colors of the Christian faith were painted . . . . As a believer, I will necessarily attribute more miraculous renderings . . . “

(SOURCE: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1731521,1918119#msg-1918119)


-My reply: So-called "miracles" are matters of religious faith, not of reliable fact.


E. Preaching, but not Practicing, the Tenets of “The Teacher”

"Tall Tales, Short Facts” offers up, in his own words, an example of how he has put on his own “big boy pants” by condemning those who “ridicule and criticize the beliefs of others. He then offers up an example--in his own word--that demonstrates how he is rather loose in what he practices vs; what he preaches when it comes to Jesus's admonitions. He then goes on to declare that he follows Jesus’s admonition to turn the other cheek against his foes, but, in the very next sentence, proceeds to contradict that less-than-faithful allegiance to the teachings of Christianity's Son of God, : as he invokes Jesus in comparing enemies of God to venomous non-human creatures:

Quote: “. . . I do embrace turning the other cheek, but when you promote a discredited anti-intellectual farce to support your atheist ideology, you're more in the 'brood of vipers' camp. Jesus had no patience or mercy for that crowd”

-My reply: See Section E


F. Invitation to a Jesus-Saving RfM Tent Revival

"Tall Tales, Short Facts" calls upon RfM to come to the Lord:

-Quote: “Jesus always stands ready with a welcome embrace, but you won't see it or benefit from it until you turn in his direction."

But wait! There's more:

"If you come to believe in God, you can grapple with the source of his power. . . . I'm just asking for a bit more honestly and less propaganda in our science."

(SOURCE: http://exmormon.org/phoru /read.php?2,1923001,1925230#msg-1925230; and http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1956550,1956706#msg-1956706)


-My reply: See Section G


G. Translation of the Above

1. Claim to follow Jesus's command to “turn the other check,” but decide to disobey Jesus by admitting to not turning the other cheek.

2. Decry those who “ridicule and criticize others,” but then turn around and do the same thing.

3. Call RfMers to repentance via a tent revival-style testimony delivered to readers of RfM. Do so in violation of RfM board guidelines: “Please--no preaching!! This is not a forum to convert others to another faith. The focus here is on recovery.”

(http://exmormon.org/bb/guidelines.html)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 05:57PM by steve benson.

Mr Benson, REPENT!

Of making such loooong posts. Don't you know we have no attention span in the 21st century?

:) you make some good points though.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 07:44PM by steve benson.

Agreed I have to have it summarized by atleast 2/3 but then I think maybe that means I'm getting dumber and I don't want that so keep making me read god damn it haha.

The OT recounts the sacrificing of unblemished firstborn male animals in one of 3 sacrifices, in anticipation of the Son of God.

Thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of animals, recorded over and over and over, from Moses to Malachi, performed by Levites, in the city of Jerusalem, the area of Judah.

Well we know that there is a "tribe" of Judah. We know that these people still celebrate Passover, thousands of years. We have a record that Jesus was Jewish and a decendand of King David (a hugely popular name)

It is generally recognized that Jesus is the unblemished only begotten Son. Jesus mentions Noah and the disobedient that were stuck in spirit prison for 2300 years.

So Jesus lied?

There was no Romans, Jews, Cesaer, no Passover, no Purim, no Bible names that flood the earth, no animal sacrifice, no Egypt, no Pharaohs.

It's one thing to have an actual Sea of Galilee. It's quite another to, through methods of reasonably historical and scientific investigation, prove that people actually and supernaturally walked on it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 08:07PM by steve benson.

The Jews still celebrate Passover.

The doesn't mean that the Easter Bunny is true or that Jesus was resurrected.

When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps the loudest is the one you hit.

I wonder if there's any compelling reason why our OP keeps going on and on about the evils of faith, while refusing to address its presence in his own beliefs?

It's seems because (though he faults Sandra Tanner for it), he believes he should be granted a personal pass for having "no willigness [sic] to subject [atheism] to the same rigid empirical standards of scientific and historical critique that [he] does Mormonism."

Steve, I'll ask my questions again. If you expect others to answer for their beliefs, why not apply that same standard to yourself? Do you understand that positive atheism _requires_ that all things occur naturally? If you wholesale dismiss all supernatural events, that's what you're left with.

1. Are you able to explain the emergence of self-replicating living cells via an entirely natural, random process without resorting to a faith claim like "science will answer this one day," even though there is not a single shred of evidence found to support this assertion?

2. What is the scientific basis for dismissing all supernatural claims a priori? Are you aware this is an opinion based upon a personal bias and is not a scientifically supported position?

3. Apart from your personal embrace of your own hypocrisy, why do you criticize others for holding beliefs that cannot be substantiated entirely via the scientific method, but refuse to subject your personal beliefs to that same standard?

And the one I think I already know the answer to ...

Are you able to address the glaring discrepancies and hypocrisy in your personal worldview without launching a personal attack against the person who points them out?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 08:27PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

... when you are personally criticized?

Here's the answer for you:

Your words knee-capped you, while, at the same time, elevated your double-standard hypocrisy to clearly viewable levels.

I didn't make up anything attributed to you. You wrote this script all by yourself,

Live with it. Live it down. Live to regret it. Live to apologize for it. Live by your words, die by your words.

At any rate, as Ben Franklin observed, "The sting of the reproach is the truth of it." No wonder you're now in this thread.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 08:40PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... when you are personally criticized?
>
> Here's the answer for you:
>
> Your words knee-capped you, while, at the same
> time, elevated your double-standard hypocrisy to
> clearly viewable levels.
>
> I didn't make up anything attributed to you. You
> wrote this script all by yourself,
>
> Live with it. Live it down. Live to regret it.
> Live to apologize for it. Live by your words, die
> by your words.
>
> At any rate, as Ben Franklin observed, "The sting
> of the reproach is the truth of it." No wonder
> you're now in this thread.


TMSH: Are you able to address the glaring discrepancies and hypocrisy in your personal worldview without launching a personal attack against the person who points them out?

SB: No, I am not able to do that.

not to mention a humor one.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 03:30AM by steve benson.

Good grief. I don't know what uninformed ID site you get this crap from.

First, consider that replicating organic matter didn't start with a cell.

1. Consider that nucleic acids were replicating before cells and at some point probably produced a protein that segregated some of the replication. There are plausible explanations for development of various pre-cell organelles that that would become more sophisticated if a polarized protein or the stereochemistry favors building the structure. This is no different than how one polarized cell can become an eye (we still see the primitive eye cells in some species). We have proteins like prions that are not alive and viruses that are only DNA. The line defining what is alive is blurry.

We don't have all the dots in the painting. We don't have all the answers but there is a hell of a lot more evidence than "God did it" and scientists are NOT going on faith.

You do not hold your religious views to nearly the standard you demand from scientists. At least scientists are forming their hypothesis based on evidence and not cherry picking evidence to fit a preconceived conclusion (god).

2. There is no reason to postulate supernatural claims just because people won't bother ruling out the most plausible explanations. There has never once been reproducible plausible proof of the supernatural, but there has been plenty of evidence of science eventually filling the gap.

3. Why be critical? Because they lack critical thinking skills and their views have not earned respect.


There are introductory evolutionary biology textbooks that lay out the facts. I'm convinced you only read things that support your need for a god to be added. This does not solve anything. Where did God's power start from? Answer with the same standards you demand from science.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good grief. I don't know what uninformed ID site
> you get this crap from.
>
> First, consider that replicating organic matter
> didn't start with a cell.
>
> 1. Consider that nucleic acids were replicating
> before cells and at some point probably produced a
> protein that segregated some of the replication.

Want to start at that level? Let's consider it. Here's the opening paragraph from a recent Harvard study on this:

"A prerequisite for constructing a protocell is supplying a mechanism for replicating the nucleic acids that fill structural, functional or informational roles. Two approaches under active investigation in our laboratory are the in vitro selection of ribozyme polymerases (replicases) and the non-enzymatic replication of nucleic acids using chemically-activated nucleotides. In both cases, the goal is a high-fidelity system for replicating essentially any nucleotide sequence."

https://ccib.mgh.harvard.edu/szostak/self_replicating_na

I encourage you to read the entire abstract. Their goal is to create a framework to further their work that will ultimately be the product of intelligent intervention. They express no hope whatsoever that the end product of their research will locate a naturally-occurring method to achieve the results they seek. If they succeed, they may win some prize for their work. But it will be the work of a team of scientists manipulating elements and creating unique environments. Do you see the problem here?

Also, "probably produced" is not a level certainty that we would likely afford "evidence" status.



> There are plausible explanations for development
> of various pre-cell organelles that that would
> become more sophisticated if a polarized protein
> or the stereochemistry favors building the
> structure. This is no different than how one
> polarized cell can become an eye (we still see the
> primitive eye cells in some species). We have
> proteins like prions that are not alive and
> viruses that are only DNA. The line defining what
> is alive is blurry.
>

I understand well the way this information is packaged and promoted. Sadly, it is frequently offered in a very misleading way. If I can locate a reserve of steel ore in Pennsylvania, would you accept that as sufficient evidence that I can explain a natural process by which a Toyota Camry is assembled? Of course you wouldn't. But that's essentially what you're offering. You can locate various possible sources for elements that go into the creation of the first living cell, but that is as relevant as my discovery of iron ore.

There are a number of problems that have never even been approached in science. Information is at the center of many. We simply have no examples in any information we encounter where that information was not created, stored, transmitted or duplicated in the absence of some intelligent intervention.




> We don't have all the dots in the painting. We
> don't have all the answers but there is a hell of
> a lot more evidence than "God did it" and
> scientists are NOT going on faith.
>

I'm not forcing anyone into an either/or regarding God with this. What does need to occur is a stop to the dishonesty that isolates various minute elements of living matter then claims that a complex series of "maybe's, possibly's, perhaps, and if's" is an adequate explanation for something that no actual science has ever even come close to observing or duplicating. It's become an ideology, because there's no science to support it.

Every scientist that does as you have done here and suggest there is some reasonable, connect-the-dots path from where we are to actual living matter is either living in a fantasy world or exercising blind faith. There is simply no evidence that these dots can come together.


> You do not hold your religious views to nearly the
> standard you demand from scientists. At least
> scientists are forming their hypothesis based on
> evidence and not cherry picking evidence to fit a
> preconceived conclusion (god).

Perhaps you can tell me your understanding of my religious views so I can address your concerns? Lacking that, my main point is information. Show me how information is assembled, stored, transmitted, and duplicated in an entirely random manner, by some natural process, with no ultimate goal or direction, relying solely upon chance. May I please see some examples of this?

>
> 2. There is no reason to postulate supernatural
> claims just because people won't bother ruling out
> the most plausible explanations. There has never
> once been reproducible plausible proof of the
> supernatural, but there has been plenty of
> evidence of science eventually filling the gap.
>

"Plausible explanations" are going to be different for different people, and impacted by your personal biases.

By definition, the emergence of self-replicating life is supernatural. It's never been observed occurring naturally, and science is completely unable (even by intelligent intervention) to duplicate this phenomenon. There has never once been observed, modeled, or reasonably suggested based upon available evidence how this came to happen. At this point, it's not reasonable to suggest it happened naturally because there's no evidence to support that assertion.


> 3. Why be critical? Because they lack critical
> thinking skills and their views have not earned
> respect.
>

I'm all for being critical. I'm deeply disappointed in the "positive atheists" who refuse to critically examine their own beliefs. Many atheists declare, "I don't believe in a god." and I have no specific argument with them. Positive Atheists make the assertion, "there is no god, and there is no supernatural" and that creates a new set of problems. They must embrace a purely natural source for everything, and deny all things supernatural. These are positions based upon faith, not science. This is why it's hypocritical for positive atheists to criticize the faith of a theist while refusing to address the faith they also embrace.

>
> There are introductory evolutionary biology
> textbooks that lay out the facts. I'm convinced
> you only read things that support your need for a
> god to be added. This does not solve anything.
> Where did God's power start from? Answer with the
> same standards you demand from science.

These books lay out a few facts and claim (as you have here) that "all is well" regarding the rest. Honestly, once you start looking at the missing information that they're encouraging you to assume, it all starts sounding uncomfortably like a presentation on the validity of Mormonism.

I urge you to do some more reading on this. You'll quickly discover there is a strong vein of ideology running through many scientific disciplines. They embrace things without any evidence whatsoever and encourage others to forgo typical scientific skepticism to embrace things that are entirely unproven.

If you come to believe in God, you can grapple with the source of his power. If you find some reasonable alternative for this amazing wealth of information that surrounds us, I'd like to hear it. I'd start by trying to find a single naturally occurring example of some batch of meaningful information that was able to spring into existence, be retained in a form of resident memory, be transmitted accurately, then be used as a blueprint to duplicate its source. Lacking that, I'm just asking for a bit more honestly and less propaganda in our science.

"If you come to believe in God, you can grapple with the source of his power. . . . I'm just asking for a bit more honestly and less propaganda in our science."

What he's really asking for you to accept is his Big Sky Daddy propaganda. In doing so, he's (again) in violation of RfM's rules of the road, as posted on this site's discussion board page under "Guidelines":

"Please--no preaching!! This is not a forum to convert others to another faith. The focus here is on recovery."

But cut him a break. He obviously doesn't read much.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 05:39PM by steve benson.

"I'm deeply disappointed in the "positive atheists" who refuse to critically examine their own beliefs. Many atheists declare, "I don't believe in a god." and I have no specific argument with them. Positive Atheists make the assertion, "there is no god, and there is no supernatural" and that creates a new set of problems. They must embrace a purely natural source for everything, and deny all things supernatural. These are positions based upon faith, not science. This is why it's hypocritical for positive atheists to criticize the faith of a theist while refusing to address the faith they also embrace."

Truly ------ RFM GOLD!!!!!!!

In fact 'positive atheists' are using far more 'faith' than any believer with 'any experience' to support their belief!!!!!

Sorry, but I don't see any 'effective rebuttal' from our man/science worshiping group here!

Only a dishonest dumb ass claims Atheism is a belief.
A lack of a belief does not constitute a belief.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only a dishonest dumb ass claims Atheism is a
> belief.
> A lack of a belief does not constitute a belief.

And that's the distinction between standard atheism and positive atheism. Positive atheism asserts there is no god. That moves this type of atheism into a belief system based upon faith.

What the hell is a "positive atheist"?

Is that an upbeat person who doesn't believe in fairy tales?

Is that an atheist who is dead certain there your fairy tales are nonsense?

Is that an atheist who has HIV?

What a stupid term.

- Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What the hell is a "positive atheist"?
>

Here's the info on Positive Atheism. It's a growing group of atheists who assert there is no god rather than simply express no belief in god. It's an important distinction, because this group of atheists embrace a faith-based belief system by embracing a claim for which there cannot be any empirical supporting evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 10:55PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Thanks for answering these questions.

I would not have been as 'nice' as you. I thought you made it quite clear what you meant.

. . . with a straight face the pseudo-scientific claptrap of dumbly-disguised, Jesus-juiced "creationism." (He's obviously not conversant with the Dover decision).

He also seriously proposes that the notion of sub-intelligent design is certified by quantum physics.

He further thinks that "Noah's Flood" actually covered the whole planet and that only a few animals and humans lived to tell about it.

He's caught in a Neanderthal time warp (assuming he believes the world is actually that old). The "missing information" he is not aware of is in the missing part of his brain.

And you're absolutely right as to his impulse to only read what self-confirms his pre-set ignorant views. RfM poster "Lawyer" made precisely that point recently in addressing "Tall Tales, Short Facts":

"I'm glad I bring you amusement.

"A more subtle reading of my posts, however, might indicate that I distinguish between my personal political views and the dictates of the constitution and constitutional jurisprudence. You might also notice that I expressly said I don't know how the courts should rule on some of the issues Trump raises because I lack the education to understand the logic behind the precedents and the broader social costs that a change may entail. Put simply, it may be right for the courts to decide on an outcome that I personally dislike.

"I'm not sure I've seen similar awareness of one's own limitations in your recent writings. In that sense I'd venture you are more like President Trump, who thinks that his own views must inevitably be constitutional because he wants them to be; than like Justice Kennedy, a conservative in political terms who violates his own personal beliefs if jurisprudence so requires. Judicial conservatism is a harsh mistress: it demands the ability to superimpose logic on visceral impulse."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1952272,1952979#msg-1952979



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 05:15AM by steve benson.

<<I wonder if there's any compelling reason why our OP keeps going on and on about the evils of faith>>

I'd guess pure entertainment.

And a clear pleasure in writing coupled with an undue amount of excess energy -

Isn't it lovely :-) I just buckle in and laugh my ass off when he starts rolling like this . . . hehehehe

. . . combined with his shallow education.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 04:06AM by steve benson.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs

Are you sure you don't fancy that rock one of your pearls?

Your Jesus warned about that...

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 3. Call RfMers to repentance via a tent
> revival-style testimony delivered to readers of
> RfM. Do so in violation of RfM board
> guidelines: “Please--no preaching!! This is not
> a forum to convert others to another faith. The
> focus here is on recovery.”
>
> (http://exmormon.org/bb/guidelines.html)

You're quite a piece of work, Steve.

If you ever choose to peek out from the single-panel cartoon world and dwell out here amongst us mere mortals, please let us know.

And my single-panel cartoon work resulted in a Pulitzer.

Heh. Not braggin.' Just reportin.'

Drop by for a sitting sometime. That would be fun.

(By the way, atheism is not a religion. It is a way of thinking that rejects religion. I know you don't get that because you talk and think only in religious language).



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 08:49PM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And my single-panel cartoon work resulted in a
> Pulitzer.
>
> Heh. Not braggin.' Just reportin.'
>
> Drop by for a sitting sometime. That would be
> fun.
>
> (By the way, atheism is not a religion. It is a
> way of thinking that rejects religion. I know you
> don't get that because you talk and think only in
> religious language).

As a complete aside from our current contention, I mean no disrespect to your skills or achievement as a cartoonist. You are legend, literally, in your chosen field, and have much to be proud of. I reference it because your presence in these conversations at times seems to demonstrate your comfort is greater in a world where outrage, bias, exaggeration and uncontested hyperbole are the mainstay. You honestly seem at times to fall a bit short of offering a simple, well-reasoned response to challenges.

And I also never raised the specter of "religion" in my characterization of your position. I specifically chose the word "faith" because that is what you exhibit when you embrace things for which there is no actual evidence, but conform to your world view. It may appear similar to a religious stance, but it is just a faith. Those who take the stand of "positive atheism" (declaring there is no god vs. not believing in a god) unavoidably incorporate faith as part of their world view. They have this in common with religious people, but are not necessarily part of religion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 09:28PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

You even admitted in this forum that you don't follow your Supernatural Savior's teachings on turning that other cheek of yours.

I can't help it if you want to take that back now. But you said it, the Google God saved it, and, through the grace of those evil vipers, I got to it.

And don't try to backpedal on your earlier comments about my cartooning. Your initial mention of it was meant as a dig designed to gain you the advantage. I get where you're coming from. It doesn't hurt. It merely informs.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 09:31PM by steve benson.

You couldn't have demonstrated my point better.

I take back nothing I said: I offer no backpedalling.

You're a great cartoonist, but often appear trapped in a world where that sort of bombast and irrational thought are adequate substitutes for reasoned, thoughtful interaction. I'll go even further to suggest you appear to be incapable of a simple, reasonable, intellectually-sound examination of topics that you hold dear. In this respect, you have not moved an inch from the standard 19 year old Mormon missionary that appears at my door.

You have no idea where I'm coming from because I am not trapped in your world. I can actually engage opposing viewpoints, consider them, and reasonably respond to them. I'm not sure I've ever seen you demonstrate that ability. That works well in a single-panel world of political cartoons, but in the real world, you're little more than an exaggerated version of Archie Bunker. Lots of opinions, lots of bombast and offensive speech, virtually no actual, reasoned thought.

. . . and they flutter, you know you've hit them.

You are fluttering because I called you out on your split personality when it comes to saying one thing and then doing another.

In your own words, no less.

That clearly demonstrates where you're coming from--unless you somehow think you're like Donald Trump in believing that your words should not be taken literally.

Your example certainly deserves to be take literally--and it's one that contradicts your loudly proclaimed gospel, as demonstrated by your own verbiage, recorded and then retrieved by doing a simple forum-poster history search.

You are trapped in this thread trying to distance yourself from--and not hold yourself responsible to--your own self-invalidating schizoid behavior when it comes to betraying your supposed principles through your contradicting pronouncements.

Own it instead of trying to lie your way out of it..Your hypocrisy is not "reasonable." It's pathological.

You attempt to delusionally defend your self-professed abilities by claiming:

"I can actually engage opposing viewpoints, consider them, and reasonably respond to them. I'm not sure I've ever seen you demonstrate that ability. That works well in a single-panel world of political cartoons, but in the real world, you're little more than an exaggerated version of Archie Bunker. Lots of opinions, lots of bombast and offensive speech, virtually no actual, reasoned thought."

Really?

I'm not the only one who finds that claim to not be a credible evaluation of your alleged assets. In reality, you do not show much of an ability to "engage opposing viewpoints, consider them, and reasonably respond to them."

Proof of that is seen in the opinion of RfM poster "Lawyer," who recognizes someone who is skilled in the art of forensics when he sees it. He says you ain't one of 'em. In a recent assessment of your modus operandi (one that he made directly to you), "Lawyer" demonstrated that he has you pegged:

"I'm glad I bring you amusement.

"A more subtle reading of my posts, however, might indicate that I distinguish between my personal political views and the dictates of the constitution and constitutional jurisprudence. You might also notice that I expressly said I don't know how the courts should rule on some of the issues Trump raises because I lack the education to understand the logic behind the precedents and the broader social costs that a change may entail. Put simply, it may be right for the courts to decide on an outcome that I personally dislike.

"I'm not sure I've seen similar awareness of one's own limitations in your recent writings. In that sense I'd venture you are more like President Trump, who thinks that his own views must inevitably be constitutional because he wants them to be; than like Justice Kennedy, a conservative in political terms who violates his own personal beliefs if jurisprudence so requires.
Judicial conservatism is a harsh mistress: it demands the ability to superimpose logic on visceral impulse."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1952272,1952979#msg-1952979



Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 02:54AM by steve benson.

1. Do you believe that self-replicating life occurred via purely natural processes, randomly, with no direction or purpose?
2. Do you realize there is absolutely no scientific support for this assertion? It is a statement of faith, not fact?
3. Do you believe there is no such thing as the supernatural?
4. Do you realize there is absolutely no scientific support for this assertion? It is a statement of faith, not fact?
5. Why would you call someone a hypocrite for criticizing Mormonism while holding faith in unproven, unscientific things when you do the exact same thing?

It's funny you have the time to write thousands of words attacking me and my motives, but seem absolutely incapable of defending your personal faith. Why is that? And is there a point where you may actually begin to realize ad hominem attacks never resolve the conflict they seek to avoid? It's pointless to attack me over these things when it was you who started the topic calling Sandra Tanner a hypocrite for doing the exact same thing that you do. I'm merely the one pointing out your shameful duplicity. So, please stop wasting your time. A thousand more words about how awful I am do not resolve the questions about your faith or answer why you are such a hypocrite.

Once again Steve, it's time to pull on your big boy pants and actually take ownership of the things you claim to believe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 02:56AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

RfM poster "Lawyer" truly nailed you. Learn from it.

You can dish out thousands of words against me, but when I do the same backatchya, you fold like a soft taco on a hot Phoenix afternoon. I caught you in your blatant hypocrisy and you simply can't cope with it.

You keep talking about "big boy pants" because you don't have a pair (in more ways than one).



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 03:09AM by steve benson.

Steve, I'll give $1000 to the charity of your choice if you'll just answer my questions and provide proof to back up your beliefs published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Show me anywhere a group of scientists has been able to observe the elements of self-replicating life assembling themselves into a living cell by some purely natural process without any intervention, and the money will be on its way. I'll mail you a receipt to prove it.

. . . nearest mental health facility or, better yet, spend it on tuition for admission into a jr. high school entry-level course in Earth Science

I am bored with talking to you--first, as youa are, in your class at the Flat Earth Society.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 04:07AM by steve benson.

I don't think you are understanding the concept of millions of years and that replications that favor something build over time.

If you saw a tiny rivulet of water in your yard making a trail, you might understand that the water is eroding the soil.
If you saw the Grand Canyon, you would demand scientists replicate the canyon to demonstrate erosion.


I don't think it would help here to explain properties like phospholipids, heterotrophs, saprotrophs, phagotrophs, and other entities in proximity in specific way. Most of the time (millions of years!) nothing would happen (no grand canyon forms). All it would take is one that had subsequent bonding that allowed advantage.


Scientists are left with the cell (the grand canyon) and have used every tool possible to study all the contributing factors that could have caused the formation of the canyon. They can do partial experiments. What they conclude must fit all the facts or it will be clarified or revised over time which has happened countless times before using the scientific method.


Again, at least the abiogenesis hypothesis is built on plausible known principles. You don't have any basis that "god did it" to compare. Because scientists don't know every little thing you appear to use that as your fail-safe to protect your views. There are no facts for you to present. Give some evidence half as plausible for "god did it" and apply the demands you have for science for the god you propose. It is much more difficult to explain the properties you propose for a god that somehow creates a cell. Remember this god manages to use processes explained by scientists for many previous gaps.

For reasons you will likely not understand, you are demonstrating exactly how the religious convoluted scientific obstructionism presents itself to lower scientific literacy.

(Edit: corrected spelling of rivulet)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 12:41PM by dagny.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think you are understanding the concept of
> millions of years and that replications that favor
> something build over time.
>
> If you saw a tiny rivulet of water in your yard
> making a trail, you might understand that the
> water is eroding the soil.
> If you saw the Grand Canyon, you would demand
> scientists replicate the canyon to demonstrate
> erosion.
>
>
> I don't think it would help here to explain
> properties like phospholipids, heterotrophs,
> saprotrophs, phagotrophs, and other entities in
> proximity in specific way. Most of the time
> (millions of years!) nothing would happen (no
> grand canyon forms). All it would take is one that
> had subsequent bonding that allowed advantage.
>
>
> Scientists are left with the cell (the grand
> canyon) and have used every tool possible to study
> all the contributing factors that could have
> caused the formation of the canyon. They can do
> partial experiments. What they conclude must fit
> all the facts or it will be clarified or revised
> over time which has happened countless times
> before using the scientific method.
>
>
> Again, at least the abiogenesis hypothesis is
> built on plausible known principles. You don't
> have any basis that "god did it" to compare.
> Because scientists don't know every little thing
> you appear to use that as your fail-safe to
> protect your views. There are no facts for you to
> present. Give some evidence half as plausible for
> "god did it" and apply the demands you have for
> science for the god you propose. It is much more
> difficult to explain the properties you propose
> for a god that somehow creates a cell. Remember
> this god manages to use processes explained by
> scientists for many previous gaps.
>
> For reasons you will likely not understand, you
> are demonstrating exactly how the religious
> convoluted scientific obstructionism presents
> itself to lower scientific literacy.
>
> (Edit: corrected spelling of rivulet)

Exactly how small or varied of the actual component parts that go into the construction of a self-replicating living cell do we need to break this down before we arrive at an element of a living cell that we can affirmatively, scientifically, declare how it came to be?

I think there's consensus that DNA is too complicated, so it requires a precursor. The current debate over the "RNA world" is far from settled, and still does not provide near a consensus answer.

How far back, how small a detail are you comfortable choosing that you're willing to cite it as an intrinsic element for an eventual living cell, and you can demonstrate exactly what circumstances or other matter were required to cause it to come into existence?

I have no problem whatsoever with some form of a reasonable "connect the dots" scenario going from one touchstone to the next using a collection of related data to point to larger premise. The problem I consistently find is there is a real shortage of actual, evidence-based dots. These conversations quickly find their landscape littered with "if" "perhaps" "maybe" and "could be." And the actual, reliable touchstones are often widely spaced and apparently faith-based.

If you wish us to rely upon a well constructed story based upon some basic observations with no significant factual evidence to support it, then I'm not sure why you would feel your argument should get any different treatment than the typical theistic arguments for the existence of God.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 01:21PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

. . . who has just delivered you a whuppin.' Grow up and take it like a man.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 05:40PM by steve benson.

Haha I too found it weird to be called to repentance on this forum not sure what I did exactly and I don't even believe in repentance in the fact that it does anything.

I like the debates because I'm not sure what I am now im not Christian or an atheist im like a nothing and I like it it's way less confusing. This post is for thinking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2017 10:45PM by badassadam.

Hmmm I might stick around for this debate or battle

I always find the faith and atheism fights funny. As an agnostic I search for wisdom and "truth" wherever its found. Who cares if the flood covered the whole earth? I do find it interesting though there are universal flood stories from cultures cover the earth. There is some evidence merging that 10,000 there was a cataclysmic floods caused by sudden ice melt.

Science acts like its knows everything when 95% of known universe is unknow. Lately people in the scientific community think we maybe in a computer simulation. If you read enough science literature it becomes clear its currently in a crisis of sorts. Money, ego, and special interests corrupt much more than politics. Atheist demand one free miracle "the big bang" and then can try to explain the rest. Its so silly to claim knowledge of an unknown -no god. Its almost as silly as saying this old ass book is literal or my little sect is God's true way.

Dawkins is smart but he might be a little too extreme for me on some things.

You're limited in not being able to think your way through what that means.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 02:33AM by steve benson.

We may actually agree on that one thing about Santa/Jesus being a myth.

Haha will do

Did I say that I did? For the kids watching at home Stevie B can't help but use logical fallacies in his vain attempt to prove the improvable. 1 point deduction for the use of a non sequitur. I can't help but think of Steve as Don Quixote tilting at windmills (his no God non-logical argument) with his trusty Sancho Panzas in toe such as hietokolob, and Dave the Atheist.

The existence or nonexistence of God is an Argument From Ignorance plain and simple. The logic is extremely binary. Atheist believe no God = 0. Believer = 1. When in reality as far as has been proven either way is actually ?. It doesn't matter how hard you kick, scream, or cry the answer is still ?

Now we can debunk the historical content of ancient writings. What does that prove? Ancient people got the facts wrong? These writings are a combination of history and lore? Some of the beliefs are silly and some of the stories are outlandish? In a 1000 years, if we don't kill each other first, people will probably look at us in the same way. We can't even record current events factually. If religion is manmade does that mean there is no god? No, it proves a there a bunch of group thinking morons out there claiming god's authority.

So you are a 0 believer; and you backfill to that belief and filter out what doesn't fit. Same with the 1 believer. Both are in error because the answer is currently ?. If you strip away bias and emotion that is what it really comes down to. In this regard we aren't any smarter than Marcus Aurelius almost 2000 years ago.

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2017 05:34AM by steve benson.

"Science acts like its knows everything"

That is 100% FALSE.

Science is the search for truth. If it knew everything, it could not exist.

Scientists are the very people who are trying to find answers to thinks they know damn well they don't know.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 06:00PM by steve benson.

"Acts like it knows everything" may have been a bit of an over statement. However, there is a lot of dogma in various fields. Mainly a byproduct of funding, greed, and ego. Real truth goes out the window as a result; there is currently a replication and statistical crisis in science. Look it up.

I work in the STEM field, and see it all the time.

The scientific method, once the holy grail of science, in many cases has been pushed aside or truncated for personal ambition and money.

and there were lots of floods...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Preserver_of_Life

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_flood

"Before 'Noah': Myths of the Flood Are Far Older Than the Bible
by Ishaan Tharoor
"Time" magazine
1 April 2014

"Darren Aronofsky’s 'Noah' dominated the U.S. box office on its opening weekend and won critical acclaim, but not without controversy. The film, based on the biblical story in Genesis of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood, arrived amid a deluge of outrage from religious groups.

"Some Christians fumed at the film’s straying from biblical Scripture.

"Meanwhile, a host of Muslim-majority countries banned Noah from screening in theaters because representations of Noah, a prophet of God in the Koran, are considered blasphemous. Such images 'provoke the feelings of believers and are forbidden in Islam and a clear violation of Islamic law,' read a fatwa issued by Cairo’s al-Azhar University, one of the foremost institutions of Sunni Islam. Egypt has not banned the film, but Indonesia, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have. 'It is important to respect these religions and not show the film,' lectured the main censors of the UAE.

"Aronofsky, an atheist, has no interest in defending his film’s scriptural authenticity. Indeed, the director has described Noah as 'the least biblical film ever made' and thinks of its chief protagonist in secular terms as the world’s 'first environmentalist'” Noah is as much a parable for the modern threat of climate change as it is an Old Testament morality play.

"But there’s another reason why the angry religious crowd ought to check their outrage. The story of Noah may be part of the Abrahamic canon, but the legend of the Great Flood almost certainly has prebiblical origins, rooted in the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia.

"The Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh dates back nearly 5,000 years and is thought to be perhaps the oldest written tale on the planet. In it, there is an account of the great sage Utnapishtim, who is warned of an imminent flood to be unleashed by wrathful gods. He builds a vast circular-shaped boat, reinforced with tar and pitch, that carries his relatives, grains and animals. After enduring days of storms, Utnapishtim, like Noah in Genesis, releases a bird in search of dry land.

"Various archaeologists suggest there was a historical deluge between 5,000 and 7,000 years ago that hit lands ranging from the Black Sea to what many call the cradle of civilization, the flood plain between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The translation of ancient cuneiform tablets in the 19th century confirmed the Mesopotamian flood myth as an antecedent of the Noah story in the Bible. In an interview with the 'London Telegraph,' Irving Finked, a curator at the British Museum and author of the recent book 'The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood', described one way the tradition may have emerged:

"'There must have been a heritage memory of the destructive power of flood water, based on various terrible floods. And the people who survived would have been people in boats. You can imagine someone sunbathing in a canoe, half asleep, and waking up however long later and they’re in the middle of the Persian Gulf, and that’s the beginning of the flood story.'

"Yet tales of the Flood spring from many sources. Myriad ancient cultures have their own legends of watery cataclysm and salvation. According to Vedic lore, a fish tells the mythic Indian king Manu of a flood that will wipe out humanity; Manu then builds a ship to withstand the epic rains and is later led to a mountaintop by the same fish.

"An Aztec story sees a devout couple hide in the hollow of a vast tree with two ears of corn as divine storms drown the wicked of the land.

"Creation myths from Egypt to Scandinavia involve tidal floods of all sorts of substances--including the blood of deities — purging and remaking the earth.

"Flood myths are so universal that the Hungarian psychoanalyst Geza Roheim thought their origins were physiological, not historical--hypothesizing that dreams of the Flood came when humans were asleep with full bladders. The religious purists now upset with Hollywood probably don't want to hear that it's really just all about drinking too much water before bedtime."
_____


"Tall Tales, Short Facts" needs to get out of his Bible, as well as to get out more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 02:43AM by steve benson.

of the kind mythologized in the Bible as to what supposedly faced Noah.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 05:15PM by steve benson.

Let's ask the honest question: Is there even enough water on this planet to flood the entire thing? Or anything remotely close?

Answer: NO

"If we keep burning fossil fuels indefinitely, global warming will eventually melt all the ice at the poles and on mountaintops, raising sea level by 216 feet. Explore what the world’s new coastlines would look like."

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/

. . . by known facts. In this case, those facts come in the form of Sandra going on record attacking the "miracle" stories of the Book of Mormon, but not those of the Bible. Specifically, it is seen in her writings for Christian publications, wherein she demonstrates no problem whatsoever debunking the "miracle" tales of the Book of Mormon because, for example, she argues that those tales are too long and clunky:

"Considering the effort needed to make the original gold plates of the Book of Mormon and then to engrave them, one would expect a scribe to be as concise as possible, not wordy. Nephi's brother, Jacob complained:

"'I cannot write but a little of my words, because of the difficulty of engraving our words upon plates' (Book of Mormon, Jacob 4:1).

"However, lengthy sentences abound in the Book of Mormon. Here is just one example:

"'And now it came to pass that according to our record, and we know our record to be true, for behold, it was a just man who did keep the record—for he truly did many miracles in the name of Jesus; and there was not any man who could do a MIRACLE [emphasis added] in the name of Jesus save he were cleansed every whit from his iniquity—And now it came to pass, if there was no mistake made by this man in the reckoning of our time, the thirty and third year had passed away; And the people began to look with great earnestness for the sign which had been given by the prophet Samuel, the Laminate, yea, for the time that there should be darkness for the space of three days over the face of the land' (3 Nephi 8:1-3").

(SOURCE: "The Oldest Biblical Text?: Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham Examined," by Sandra Tanner, reprinted from "Christian Research Journal," http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no113.htm)


Ever seen Sandra Tanner criticize Bible "miracle" tales using the same standard that she invokes above? Didn't think so. Double-standard hypocrisy on her part, plain and simple.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 05:50PM by steve benson.