The Dangers of Dogmatism and Sloppy Reading
dsharavi
>enough of duhwayne's nonsense
>as you can see from the following he has a long history as a liar and
>an idiot
Interesting reading, Rabbi. Some editing would have been helpful,
though, to show that the scientist who reviewed Anderson's pompous
twaddle noted -- as have many other posters on these groups --
Anderson's pronounced propensity for distortion, falsification,
denigration of serious scholarship in lieu of his own unsubstantiated
opinions in fields where his own understanding is very tenuous; his
narrow simplistic black-and-white views, his belief in his ability to
read minds, his projection of his thoughts onto others; along with his
inability to comprehend what he reads, and his willingness to lie
about what he has read.
Where The Dangers of Dogmatism and Sloppy Reading misses out is in
failing to note Anderson's extreme arrogance and misogyny, as well as
a few other points. But interesting, nonetheless.
Here it is, with edits.
>Science vs. Mormonism: The Dangers of Dogmatism and Sloppy Reading
>Robert R. Bennett
>Review of Duwayne R. Anderson. Farewell to Eden: Coming to Terms with
>Mormonism and Science. Bloomington, IN: 1st Books Library, 2003.
>350 pp., bibliographical references, appendixes, and index. $29.95
>hardcover, $22.95 paperback.
> I have trouble understanding why people drift away from the
>Church. I'm sure the reasons are different and varied. I can
>understand if a person wants to misbehave and has to rationalize to
>himself. He has to think he's all right. But I also understand that
>people who think they have to be as smart as the Lord, understand
>everything, and have no contradictions in their minds may have
>trouble. There are all kinds of contradictions that I don't
>understand, but I find the same kinds of contradictions in science,
>and I haven't decided to apostatize from science.
[...]
>Duwayne R. Anderson is a former member of the Church of Jesus Christ
>of Latter-day Saints who decided that his understanding of Mormonism
>was incompatible with his understanding of science. Farewell to Eden
>is his attempt to show how the two are incompatible. It contains an
>interesting mixture of science—explained at roughly the level of
>Scientific American—and Anderson's thin understanding of Latter-day
>Saint theology.
>While serving as elders quorum president, Anderson began to question
>his faith. He read the Old Testament for the first time and learned
>that, according to the Pentateuch, Moses had ordered (under God's
>direction) the slaughter of all the males of the Midianites whom they
>had conquered in war (Numbers 31:14—18). Anderson calls any "God" that
>demanded such actions a monster. He felt that his concerns with this
>passage in the Old Testament were not adequately answered by his
>church leaders.
[...]
>For Anderson, however, it appears that there is no possible exception
>to the prohibition against killing or no possible reason for God to
>order the deaths of people. All is black or white.
[...]
>The fact that millions of people have read that identical scripture
>and still managed to maintain both a belief in a loving God and a
>belief in the prophetic mission of Moses seems beyond consideration
>for Anderson. That there could be a time, place, and circumstance in
>which God determined that it was in the best interest of his children
>to return the Midianite sons to him in the spirit world is simply
>impossible in Anderson's black-and-white world.
[...]
>Anderson's argument is actually with all of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
[...]
>This is vintage anti-Mormonism—general accusations of "official
>intellectual dishonesty" against any and all who are not in agreement
>with a critic, without providing any detail for examination.
[...]
>Anderson then discusses his disillusionment with the Book of Mormon
>and its defenders. He specifically takes Hugh Nibley to task for "his
>continual habit of making arguments that are so broad they can be used
>to justify belief in virtually anything, including UFOs and little
>green men" (p. xxii). By associating him with "little green men,"
>Anderson attempts to make Nibley look absurd to the reader—without
>engaging any of his arguments. Of course, the reference to "little
>green men" is wholly Anderson's invention. Nibley never said any such
>thing.
[...]
>In another vein, Anderson conjectures that his life is in danger
>because of his apostasy. "Solemn priesthood brethren had taught me
>that those who apostatized from the LDS Church died mysteriously of
>awful diseases" (p. xxiii). Who are these "solemn priesthood
>brethren"? The closest I have ever heard to such teachings are some
>accounts of the allegedly untimely deaths of those who participated in
>the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.5 I have never heard that
>apostasy leads to death from awful diseases. Anderson cites nothing in
>Latter-day Saint publications to illustrate this charge.
[...]
>Anderson also claims to have been taught that, if he lost his
>testimony, he was evil and would lose his job, his wife, his children,
>his sanity, and his health. It would be consistent with church
>teachings to say that it is unlikely that the apostate would have his
>wife or children after this life, but Anderson seems to imply that the
>church teaches that these things will be lost in this life. Losing
>one's family after this life should be utterly meaningless to an
>atheist such as Anderson since he believes there is nothing after this
>life.
>The book is dedicated to Duwayne Marlo Anderson, a relative of the
>author who seems to have followed a similar path out of the Church of
>Jesus Christ. The author Anderson gives a rather strange account of
>the effects of Marlo's name being mentioned in a family setting, which
>gives us significant insight into his own thought processes. He
>maintains:
[...]
>I could read in their silent expressions the pain of knowing
>that Marlo was a likely Son of Perdition. (p. xiii)
>Anderson apparently has the ability, by looking at their faces, to
>read the minds of those who remained silent, knowing by their
>expressions that they believed that Marlo was a likely son of
>perdition. Did anyone actually say this, or is Anderson simply
>ascribing his thoughts to others?
>Anderson's explanation of the sons of perdition is illustrative of his
>tendency to misread Latter-day Saint scriptures and teachings...
> Anderson has misread the text. It does not teach
>that simple apostasy from the church relegates one to being a son of
>perdition...Anderson displays a fundamental
>misunderstanding of Latter-day Saint doctrine.
[...]
>Anderson acknowledges the stress that church
>leaders place on education, yet states, "At the same time, while
>recognizing the church's legitimate support of education and learning,
>it would be an equal mistake to ignore or deny the force with which
>the church opposes intellectual issues that the brethren consider
>threatening to the institution and/or its members" (p. 9). He leaves
>this statement unsupported. The reader is left to wonder what
>intellectual issues the Brethren supposedly oppose, and how exactly
>this opposition is manifest.
[...]
>[Anderson] claims that the Book of
>Mormon "describes how all churches except the LDS Church constitute
>the great and abominable church of the devil" (p. 15). This represents
>an extremely narrow reading of the Book of Mormon and is inconsistent
>with the manner in which church leaders from the beginning have
>described other churches. Can Anderson come up with a quotation from
>one of the prophets asserting that "all churches except the LDS Church
>constitute the great and abominable church of the devil"? I've
>certainly not seen one.
[...]
>In his book, Anderson presents his own hierarchy of doctrinal
>authority in the Church of Jesus Christ (pp. 16—17)... Anderson's
>example to illustrate his point is fallacious...Anderson has simply
>misread the Book of Mormon...Anderson's is a false contradiction.
[...]
>Anderson asserts that the
>Brethren hide things, its leaders lie, and "one cannot simply trust
>Mormons to be particularly forthcoming about what the church
>teaches" (p. 25)...Anderson then quotes several church publications
>[and] uses this as an example of
>the church hiding its doctrines. The publications Anderson cites are
>certainly available to anyone who is interested. A better question
>might be—is an interview with a newspaper really the place to go into
>the significance of this couplet?
[...]
>Anderson offers a definition of science for the purpose of contrasting
>it with Mormonism. ...Anderson claims that "science is based on
>observations that are
>verified by other, critical experimenters. Mormonism is based on
>revelation that is accepted by faith, and not generally, reliably, or
>universally verifiable by independent and critical observers" (p. 40).
>Whatever one might think of this assertion, it does not preclude the
>truthfulness of Mormonism. In matters of faith, what constitutes an
>"independent critical observer"? One that has no faith?
[...]
>He also asserts that "science has no sacred principles that cannot be
>questioned...." I would dispute the notion that the principles
>of science can be freely questioned without social consequences.
>Attempts to question fundamental scientific theories have been met
>with derision, hostility, and personal attacks. Here, as in other
>places that Anderson attacks the Church of Jesus Christ, no references
>are provided to back up the accusations.
>Anderson further maintains that "critical, skeptical thinking is
>central to science, fostered, encouraged, and often rewarded in terms
>of the quality of work performed. Mormonism resists and sometimes
>punishes skeptical thinking, especially regarding core sacred
>principles" (p. 40). Again, the dichotomy is overstated in both
>directions. In practice, scientists do not always encourage and foster
>skeptical thinking, and the church does not necessarily resist or
>punish such thinking. It depends on the forum and the attitude.
>And Anderson argues that "science demands that theories change or be
>discarded when they fail to describe observations. Mormonism demands
>faith in sacred principles whether or not they are in disagreement
>with observation" (p. 44). I would argue that Mormonism doesn't demand
>anything. ..The church is not in a position to demand.
>With these alleged differences between Mormonism and science in mind,
>Anderson attempts in subsequent chapters to show how Mormonism is
>incompatible with scientific observations.
[...]
>[Anderson's] understanding of Latter-day Saint scripture is
>rather tenuous. For instance, Anderson makes the following claim:
> At times, though, the LDS concept of God seems positively
>inconsistent....Anderson then explains:
> Historians of Mormonism are likely to view Alma 18:24—28 and
>Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 as illustrative of the evolution of
>Joseph Smith's concept of God. ..[...]
>Alma 18:24—28 is a particularly poor choice of scriptures to use to
>define the Latter-day Saint concept of God and to show a contradiction
>to other scriptures. First, this is not a doctrinal sermon, but simply
>an account of a missionary (Ammon, not Alma, as Anderson mistakenly
>claims) and an investigator (King Lamoni) seeking common ground for a
>discussion. Second, part of what Anderson claims as a possible Latter-
>day Saint explanation (speaking in a language the Lamanites could
>understand) is actually quite reasonable.
[...]
>None of these explanations is acceptable to Anderson. Instead, he
>portrays Latter-day Saints as either inconsistent in their doctrine or
>simply dishonest. A footnote to the milk-before-meat sentence above
>once again impugns the honesty of Latter-day Saints: "This explanation
>further illustrates the justification held within the LDS Church of
>not always being totally honest and forthcoming about doctrines
>espoused by the Church" (p. 49 n. 32). Shall we also accuse
>mathematicians of not always being totally honest and forthcoming when
>they refuse to teach sixth graders the principles of calculus?
[...]
>Further, Anderson betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature
>of the Holy Ghost. ..Anderson confuses the physical location of God
>(or the Holy Ghost) with his influence.
[...]
>According to Anderson, Latter-day Saint doctrine proclaims that God
>and Christ (and indeed all resurrected beings) have physical bodies
>that exist within our universe. Anderson uses the doctrine of the
>physical nature of God and the finite dimensions of his brain to
>theorize that a brain of this finite dimension could not possibly be
>omniscient because of the impossibility of storing that much
>information in so small a space. ...Anderson insists that this is insufficient
>storage space for all knowledge. He thus believes that he has
>demonstrated the impossibility of the Latter-day Saint concept of God.
>Personally, I am unwilling to take the position that I understand
>enough about every possible realm of existence and every possible
>method used by God to know all things to make this rash claim. It
>seems the ultimate arrogance for man to assume that because he cannot
>comprehend how such a thing could be, given his understanding of the
>universe, such a thing cannot be.
[...]
>The final twenty pages of the third chapter are devoted to a fairly
>detailed discussion of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg
>uncertainty principle...This discussion is
>all fairly standard physics and would not likely be disputed by any
>Latter-day Saint scientist. However, Anderson then uses the Heisenberg
>principle as proof that God cannot possibly know all things. "Quantum
>physics prohibits it. Deterministic nonlinear chaos prohibits it. This
>represents, I think, one of the most significant conflicts between
>Mormon doctrine and modern science" (p. 74).
>Anderson is really stretching here. ..
>If Latter-day Saint theology stated that there is nothing in
>the universe beyond that which our senses can detect, then Anderson
>might have grounds for his argument. But that is not the case.
[...]
>Much of chapter 4 is devoted to Anderson's interpretation of astronomy
>in Abraham 3 and the possibility of extraterrestrial life...
>Anderson describes the
>attempts scientists on earth have made to detect extraterrestrial life
>and suggests: "If there really are extraterrestrials out there, and
>they are transmitting electromagnetic radiation into space, we ought
>to be able to detect them" (p. 108). He further affirms that
>"intelligent life should be able to spread through the universe on a
>timescale that's short compared with the life of the universe. So if
>there's intelligent life somewhere, it should be everywhere, and we
>should have met or heard from them by now. So the fact that, after all
>our searching, we haven't contacted extraterrestrials suggests
>strongly that there are none" (p. 109).
>This is a very bold statement resting solely on conjecture. Many
>scientists have argued that we are unlikely to encounter
>extraterrestrials simply because the distances between stars are so
>vast as to make interstellar travel impractical. Anderson also fails
>to take into account the length of time that would be required for
>signals from extraterrestrials to reach the earth. There could well be
>civilizations such as ours sending electromagnetic signals off into
>space as we are, but if their technology was acquired more recently in
>time than they are light-years away, we wouldn't be able to detect
>them yet. To state, as Anderson does, that the fact that we haven't
>yet contacted other civilizations from other worlds strongly suggests
>that they don't exist seems premature.
[...]
>Anderson attacks the Book of Abraham because of its focus on the rates
>of rotation of heavenly bodies (see, for example, Abraham 3:4—10) and
>because it calls bodies with slower rotations greater than those with
>more rapid rotations. He even carries the argument to manmade
>satellites...Aside from the fact that Anderson is stretching the analogy here,
>since the Book of Abraham is speaking of the creations of God, not of
>man, he really doesn't even have the science right.
[...]
>Anderson never really addresses what the Book of Abraham may mean when
>referring to some heavenly bodies being greater than others...
>Anderson insists on a reading that is not obvious from the text and
>interprets it in a way that makes it look as bad as possible for the
>Latter-day Saint scriptures.11
[...]
>Anderson explains what science has discovered about the history of the
>earth and its origins and then contrasts this with his understanding
>of Latter-day Saint doctrine....Anderson's
>actual argument is with his own literal interpretation of Latter-day
>Saint scriptures and his own application of that interpretation as
>broadly or as narrowly as he chooses.
[...]
>The inconsistency here is entirely of Anderson's making, based
>completely on his reading of the scripture.
[...]
>The inconsistency only comes with
>Anderson's insistence that a verse describing the creation of the
>earth is really describing the creation of the universe.
[...]
>Anderson's argument in this chapter is not so much with Mormonism but
>with creationism—the belief that God had a hand in creating the earth
>and its inhabitants. While he specifically attacks anyone who doesn't
>fully accept the theory of evolution, his implication is that anyone
>who believes in God is quite ignorant of science.
>As is typical in this book, Anderson fails to engage in any meaningful
>way thoughtful scientists, whether Latter-day Saint or not, who
>believe in the existence of God and that God played an active part in
>the creation of the world and the life thereon.
[...]
>Anderson makes
>his mistake is that, along with thousands of atheistic scientists like
>him, he assumes that because it is possible to explain life on the
>earth through the theory of evolution, without resorting to bringing
>God into the equation, that this is the only or even the best
>explanation. ... in the end, all that remains is a theory
>developed to explain a set of observations. There is no proof, and
>likely none possible, to show that God did or did not direct the
>development of species.
>Anderson himself admits that not all of the details of the theory of
>evolution have been filled in...After saying this, Anderson goes
>on to bolster the theory of evolution
>by observing that virtually all scientists believe it to be correct,
>despite disagreements on the particulars, and thereby seems to
>anticipate any potential detractor's arguments that there are holes in
>the theory.
[...]
>Anderson makes final pronouncements on
>topics such as evolution, while at the same time recognizing that the
>picture is still incomplete. He presumes that if he can't think of a
>good reason for God to act in a certain way, there must be no God at
>all.
[...]
>Much of
>Anderson's dispute with Mormonism is dependent on his broad
>(geographical and temporal) reading of certain Book of Mormon
>passages.
[...]
>Another broad reading leads Anderson to state,
> According to the Book of Mormon, the ancient American continent
>was populated by three different migrations of people who traveled by
>ship from the Old World to the western hemisphere. (p. 225)
>While it is certainly true that the Book of Mormon identifies only
>these three groups specifically as coming to the Western Hemisphere,
>it by no means declares that these groups were exclusive—that they
>were the only peoples ever to come to the Americas anciently.
[...]
>In his discussion of the journeys of the Jaredites, Anderson conflates
>the accounts of their travels through the Old World with their journey
>to the New.
[...]
>While it could be argued that
>this is a minor point of error, I believe it is symptomatic of
>Anderson's careless reading of the scriptures (he exhibited similar
>sloppiness in his reading of Doctrine and Covenants 76 regarding the
>sons of perdition, as discussed above).
>Anderson insists on Book of Mormon inconsistency when it is actually
>only his flawed reading of the text that leads to the contradiction.
[...]
>Anderson's reading and assumptions are simply flawed here. Nothing in
>Lehi's statements about the promised land require inclusion of the
>entire Western Hemisphere, any more than the Israelite's promised land
>of necessity included all of Europe, Asia, and Africa.
[...]
>Anderson further compounds his misreading by dreaming up another
>explanation for this apparent inconsistency.
[...]
>Again, any problems here are entirely of Anderson's making and are
>based on his insistence on reading Lehi's prophecy as encompassing all
>time periods and an entire hemisphere. Like many other anti-Mormon
>writers, he claims to see an error in the text by forcing a certain
>interpretation on it, and then attempts to read Joseph Smith's motives
>for writing the misread text.
[...]
>Anderson again errs in his basic ability to comprehend the text of the
>Book of Mormon in discussing the languages used by the Book of Mormon
>people.
[...]
>Let's see what the Book of Mormon actually says and whether Anderson
>is accurate in his claim of inconsistency....Anderson fails to cite verse
>2 in Mosiah 1...
[...]
>Anderson's statement that "the Book of Mormon claim[s] that the
>ancient Americans used Egyptian" is too broad and nonspecific.
[...]
>I'm searching to find the "yet another failure at internal consistency
>within the Book of Mormon" that Anderson is claiming here. He seems to
>confound language with script...There actually is no
>inconsistency, regardless of Anderson's claims.
[...]
>Apparently aware that numerous Latter-day Saint
>commentators have noted that the Book of Mormon text never uses the
>word coin, despite the chapter heading of Alma 11, Anderson still
>insists that the Book of Mormon peoples were described as using coins.
>....This is all in Anderson's imagination.
>The Book of Mormon makes no sweeping claims of the type Anderson seems
>wont to make. I
[...]
> Anderson's interpretation of
>the scripture is far too narrow and is simply inconsistent with the
>text.... He seems to insist on this narrow interpretation of the
>scripture so he can claim that all the people of ancient America must
>be Christian or else the Book of Mormon is false.
>Anderson spends twenty pages describing current scientific
>understanding of the history of man in the Western Hemisphere. (I
>presume that his summary is accurate, although I'm not an expert in
>this field; given his propensity to misread the Book of Mormon, I'm
>not sure how valid my presumption is.) There really isn't anything
>here that argues against the Book of Mormon. He then tries to compare
>his summary history of the Americas before Columbus with the Book of
>Mormon, but he fails to engage seriously any of the substantial body
>of literature on the subject, choosing rather to misrepresent it and
>then dismiss it almost out of hand.
[...]
>It would be helpful if Anderson could show where any of the more
>scholarly treatments of a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon
>made any of these claims that he seems to be attributing to them.
[...]
>And their discussions bear
>little resemblance to the simplistic and rather simple-minded
>caricature that Anderson supplies on their behalf.
>[Anderson] has failed
>to consider a large body of scholarship on this topic... Rather than engage these
>types of scholarly arguments, Anderson takes the rather bizarre course
>of comparing Book of Mormon peoples to the Romans, using as evidence
>the paintings of Arnold Friberg
[...]
>The idea that Joseph Smith imagined the Nephites as Romans is
>completely an invention of Anderson's mind. Anderson created a table
>comparing Rome with the Nephites (p. 261), apparently to show the
>connections between the two civilizations, although many of his
>connections are tenuous to the point of absurdity. For example, he
>suggests that a significant parallel between the two is the fact that
>Rome was attacked and pillaged by the Gauls and that the Nephites were
>attacked by Lamanites and plagued by Gadianton robbers. Rome had wars
>and the Nephites had wars. But so did Paris, Athens, London, Peking,
>Jerusalem, and virtually every other city or state that has existed
>for centuries. What exactly is the point?
[...]
>One example that Anderson cites of Latter-day Saint apologists using
>recent archaeological discoveries to support the Book of Mormon is the
>location on the Arabian Peninsula of a candidate for the river Lehi
>(presumably he means the river Laman). Anderson dismisses this
>discovery as trivial—"why would we expect a 19th-century writer not to
>imagine a river in Arabia?" (p. 268). Anderson notes, just to throw in
>a little more doubt, that its verification is still lacking. One
>wonders what sort of verification he is talking about—verification
>that the river is there? Certainly photos of the river verify that it
>is there. Does he mean verification that the river is actually the
>river Laman? This is impossible without a twenty-six-hundred-year-old
>inscription saying, "Lehi was here with his two recalcitrant sons
>Laman and Lemuel and his two good kids Nephi and Sam." Of course,
>Anderson never troubles himself to try to find out what nineteenth-
>century authors might have thought about Arabian rivers.
[...]
>It is clear that Anderson has done at least some reading of current
>Latter-day Saint scholarship on the topic of Book of Mormon geography
>and cultural connections to ancient Americans. However, his summary of
>it is virtually unrecognizable. Once again, Anderson fails to engage
>LDS scholarship in any meaningful way.
[...]
>Anderson does manage to misread a passage from the Encyclopedia of
>Mormonism....This is an extremely specious argument for a number of
>reasons....Anderson here misunderstands the point that the encyclopedia is trying
>to make. ..
[...]
>Another of Anderson's arguments against the Latter-day Saint position
>is that since the Book of Mormon is supposed to be an inspired
>translation, God would not allow translation errors to creep into the
>text. I always find it interesting when atheists purport to know what
>God would or would not do.
[...]
>In this final chapter, Anderson takes sixteen pages to attempt to
>refute the teachings that he claims to have received as a young boy
>that Mormons are the most scientific people on the Earth...
>the Encyclopedia of Mormonism does not make the
>claims Anderson contends he was taught as a boy.
[...]
>In summarizing his statistics, Anderson falls into the very trap he so
>strongly suggests we avoid—he draws unsubstantiated conclusions.
[...]
>Again, Anderson is attempting to connect his view of Mormonism with
>statistics that do not say any such thing....Anderson is abusing the
>statistics in attempting to connect his
>view of Mormonism with these statistical studies.
>Conclusion
>Is it possible for a scientist to be a believing Latter-day Saint?
>Anderson suggests that it is not, at least if the scientist is honest.
>I consider Henry Eyring to be an example that contradicts this point.
>It is beyond dispute that Henry Eyring was a great scientist. He was
>one of the most brilliant chemists this nation has ever produced,
>while at the same time a most humble and likeable person. I believe
>that it is also beyond dispute that he was a believing Latter-day
>Saint and that he was honest about both his science and his belief.
>This single example alone refutes Anderson's absolute claim—and such
>examples could be multiplied many times over.
[...]
>Duwayne Anderson appears to me to fit Dr. Eyring's
>description of people who think they have "to be as smart as the Lord,
>understand[ing] everything, and hav[ing] no contradictions in their
>minds."
[...]
>Although not in the same class as Henry Eyring, I know for a fact that
>I am a believing scientist as well. As a scientist, my personal
>philosophy is to search for truth but to recognize that there are ways
>to access truth beyond the laboratory.
[...]
>There are some questions for which I have no answers, but rather than
>throw in the towel and declare myself an atheist because I can't
>explain how current scientific theories square with scripture, I am
>willing to put those questions on the shelf, as it were, until
>additional information is available.
[...]
>Anderson's
>readings of Latter-day Saint scriptures are flawed and literalistic in
>the extreme and that he fails to deal with the large body of
>literature that addresses some of the very points of Latter-day Saint
>doctrine with which he disagrees.
>>>Unless Anderson has proof that Michael has attempted to "commit
>>>genocide", as Anderson puts it, based on Anderson's beloved verses
>>>from Numbers 31, this is no more "a living example of how those
>>>stories can oooz evil into modern-day society" than Andromache's
>>>speech from the Iliad (VI.414 passim) is a cautionary of the fate
>>>awaiting all modern war widows. Since Anderson, naturally, has no
>>>proof, this is nothing more than Anderson's childish insistence that
>>>his personal opinion amounts to incontrovertible facts.
>>>Deborah
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jun 25, 4:06 am, RabbiJoekerr <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> >enough of duhwayne's nonsense
> >as you can see from the following he has a long history as a liar and
> >an idiot
>
> Interesting reading, Rabbi. Some editing would have been helpful,
> though, to show that the scientist who reviewed Anderson's pompous
> twaddle noted -- as have many other posters on these groups --
> Anderson's pronounced propensity for distortion, falsification,
> denigration of serious scholarship in lieu of his own unsubstantiated
> opinions in fields where his own understanding is very tenuous; his
> narrow simplistic black-and-white views, his belief in his ability to
> read minds, his projection of his thoughts onto others; along with his
> inability to comprehend what he reads, and his willingness to lie
> about what he has read.
>
> Where The Dangers of Dogmatism and Sloppy Reading misses out is in
> failing to note Anderson's extreme arrogance and misogyny, as well as
> a few other points. But interesting, nonetheless.
>
> Here it is, with edits.
>
> >Science vs. Mormonism: The Dangers of Dogmatism and Sloppy Reading
> >Robert R. Bennett
Deborah, do you realize that Robert R. Bennett was a paid apologist
for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? He takes the
Book of Mormon as "scripture."
The Book of Mormon states that the ancient Americans were Hebrews.
That they arrived in America, about 2600 years ago, in ships. That
they brought Old World plants and animals, domesticated horses, had
cattle, flocks, and cultivated Old World plants like wheat.
It says they followed the Mosaic Law, used Hebrew and Egyptian,
smelted iron and steel, and had chariots pulled by horses.
Mormon apologists argue that scientific DNA evidence regarding the
origins of ancient Americans isn't valid because that evidence points
to Siberia, roughly12,000 years ago, as the real origin of the ancient
Americans.
When you trot out Robert R. Bennett as a critic of my book, and a
"scientist" it's almost laughable. It's like quoting a young-earth
creationist.
But while were on the subject, you might be interested to know that
your "scientist" also professed belief in the Book of Abraham. This
is a notorious fraud (in addition to the Book of Mormon) committed by
Joseph Smith where he pretended to "translate" common Egyptian
documents into a book that was supposedly hand-written by Abraham
himself. In the process Smith committed blasphemy against Jehovah by
claiming an image of the Egyptian god Min (sitting on a thrown) is
really "god."
Here's a link where you can see the picture:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/fac_2
The part of interest (well, it's all interesting, actually) is Fig.7
Smith says it's god sitting on his thrown. Egyptologists say it's an
image of Min. You can even see his erect penis (Min was what's called
a phallic god). about 30 years ago the LDS Church actually erased the
erect penis, but when the critics caught them, they restored it.
Since you seem to think Bennett is such a good "scientist" and
reliable reviewer, may we assume you share his sentiments regarding
the Book of Abraham?
Meanwhile, the fact seems to have completely escaped you that Matt
Young -- a very accomplished Jewish scientist -- gave my book a very
good review (4 stars).
<snip to end>
dsha...@yahoo.com
wrote:
<yaaawwwnnnn> Pot, kettle variation.
[snip dogma eat dogma spat]
The shoteh d'rabonam doth protest these critical reviews too much,
methinks.
Deborah
Duwaynea Anderson
Deborah, when you snip the response and ignore everything in it, you
look as if you realize you have no rational argument.
You claim Robert Bennett is a "scientist" of some merit and that his
review of my book (Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism
and science http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/1410753840]
actually means something.
But Robert Bennett, an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) was a prolific writer for the LDS
Church. Among his various “scholarly” attempts are this rather
comical attempt to defend the Book of Mormon’s depiction of ancient
Americans that domesticated horses. Read it here.
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=129
Another of Bennett’s attempts at scholarship is his defense of the
Book of Mormon’s depiction of ancient Americans that followed the
Mosaic Law. Read it here:
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=131
According to Bennett: “Even if horses had been abundantly used and had
been a vital element in the culture of Book of Mormon people (a claim
never made by Book of Mormon writers),”
This illustrates a trait of LDS apologists (not just Bennett) – they
seem to know the Book of Mormon is a clumsy fraud, and will actually
lie about what it says. Note that Bennett claims there’s nothing in
the Book of Mormon that says horses were used “abundantly.” Yet the
Book of Mormon clearly says the ancient Americans had “many horses.”
Enos 1: 21 “And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did till the
land, and raise all manner of grain, and of fruit, and flocks of
herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats,
and wild goats, and also many horses.”
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/enos/1/21#21
Bennett goes on to lie by saying that the Book of Mormon never says
that horses are not described in the Book of Mormon as “vital,” yet
the Book of Mormon clearly says that the ancient Americans considered
the horse to be useful, along with a host of other animals that were,
in fact, never known to ancient Americans.:
1 Nephi 18: 25 “And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of
promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in
the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and
the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild
animals, which were for the use of men.”
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/18/25#25
Here’s an article of Bennett’s where he tries to defend the Book of
Mormon’s depiction of ancient Americans growing Old World crops:
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=126
Bennett’s choice of argument is that there was some sort of
“translation” error and that the words “wheat” and “barley” were just
labels applied to native plants. And with that argument Bennett
illustrates (again) his unabashed dishonesty because the Book of
Mormon describes the ancient Americans bringing Old World plants to
the Americas, planting them, and having them thrive:
“And it came to pass that we had gathered together all manner of
seeds of every kind, both of grain of every kind, and also of the
seeds of fruit of every kind. 1 Nephi 18:6 “ And it came to pass that
on the morrow, after we had prepared all things, much fruits and meat
from the wilderness, and honey in abundance, and provisions according
to that which the Lord had commanded us, we did go down into the ship,
with all our loading and our seeds, and whatsoever thing we had
brought with us, every one according to his age; wherefore, we did all
go down into the ship, with our wives and our children. … And it came
to pass that I, Nephi, did guide the ship, that we sailed again
towards the promised land. And it came to pass that after we had
sailed for the space of many days we did arrive at the promised land;
and we went forth upon the land, and did pitch our tents; and we did
call it the promised land. And it came to pass that we did begin to
till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our
seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem.
And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were
blessed in abundance. And it came to pass that we did find upon the
land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were
beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the
ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of
wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all
manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper. [1 Nephi 8,
18]
Any competent scientists familiar with the plants and animals of
ancient America would realize that virtually everything in those Book
of Mormon verses is a false representation of conditions in ancient
America. Even Bennett seems to understand that the description in the
Book of Mormon cannot possibly be true, because his argument pretends
that the Book of Mormon doesn’t actually mean to say what it says; a
blatant misrepresentation since the Book of Mormon’s *description* is
one of Old World plants being transplanted in the Americas.
Oh, and that barely that Bennett talks about? Another of his
misrepresentations. It’s not of Old World origin. It’s a distinct
New World variety.
In short, Bennett isn’t a “scientist.” He’s an apologist that has a
long track record of writing intellectually dubious junk for the LDS
Church to prop up the Book of Mormon. He has a record of lying about
what the Book of Mormon says, as well as lying about what LDS critics
say.
And he’s Deborah’s “scientist” of choice.
<snip to end>
dsha...@yahoo.com
On Jun 26, 10:49 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Deborah, when you snip the response and ignore everything in it,
Anderson is lying again. I don't indulge in Anderson's tactics.
[snip Anderson's latest re-re-re-re-re-pasted boring rant against a
critic of his book]
Deborah
Duwaynea Anderson
Actually, you just did it again. And it's easy to verify, too.
You claim Robert Bennett is a "scientist" of some merit and that his
review of my book (Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism
and science http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/14107...]
actually means something.
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=129
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=131
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/enos/1/21#21
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/18/25#25
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=126
drahcir
> On Jun 25, 4:06 am, RabbiJoekerr <jokersotherm...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> >enough of duhwayne's nonsense
> >as you can see from the following he has a long history as a liar and
> >an idiot
>
> Interesting reading, Rabbi. Some editing would have been helpful,
> though, to show that the scientist who reviewed Anderson's pompous
> twaddle noted -- as have many other posters on these groups --
> Anderson's pronounced propensity for distortion, falsification,
> denigration of serious scholarship in lieu of his own unsubstantiated
> opinions in fields where his own understanding is very tenuous; his
> narrow simplistic black-and-white views, his belief in his ability to
> read minds, his projection of his thoughts onto others; along with his
> inability to comprehend what he reads, and his willingness to lie
> about what he has read.
>
> Where The Dangers of Dogmatism and Sloppy Reading misses out is in
> failing to note Anderson's extreme arrogance and misogyny, as well as
> a few other points. But interesting, nonetheless.
>
> Here it is, with edits.
>
> >While serving as elders quorum president, Anderson began to question
> >his faith. He read the Old Testament for the first time and learned
> >that, according to the Pentateuch, Moses had ordered (under God's
> >direction) the slaughter of all the males of the Midianites whom they
> >had conquered in war (Numbers 31:14—18). Anderson calls any "God" that
> >demanded such actions a monster.
This is a riot. Looks like I have something in common with this
asshole, much as I hate to admit it. I had similar questions upon
exposure to the OT. Difference is, I WAS NINE YEARS OLD!!!! Again,
Anderson is a child and cannot be treated as an adult.
> ...
>
> read more »
drahcir
you had your "revelation". You were a silly lost child when you were
an elder, and a child you remain. Nothing's changed. You'll have many
further "revelations", Du - what's scary is what the next one will
be...
dsharavi
On Jul 13, 2:19 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Actually, you just did it again. And it's easy to verify, too.
> You claim Robert Bennett is a "scientist" of some merit
Anderson is lying again. I never claimed that Robert Bennett was
anything but what he said he was. And I really don't give a rat's
tushy that his unfavourable review hurt poor little Duwayne's
feelings. Harlan Ellison has gotten hundreds of unfavourable reviews,
but you don't see Harlan crying all over the internet about them. And
Harlan is a thousand times the writer Anderson will never be.
[snip Anderson's latest re-re-re-re-re-re pasted boring rant against a
RabbiJoekerr
wrote:
and again duhwayne's stupid book and all of his lies are
meaningless...
time for that racist imbecile to move on!
RabbiJoekerr
It's funny how the little racist crybaby still tries to twist and lie
his way thru everything no matter how many times he's exposed.... his
over-blown ego just can't ahndle it1
Duwaynea Anderson
Don't trip over yourself as you backtack.
Of *course* you tried using Bennett as an authority. Why, you even
plagiarized his ad hominem in the title of this thread. But in
hitching your wagon to Bennett you've aligned yourself with the
intellectual equivalent of a young-earth creationist.
Robert Bennett, an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=129
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=131
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/enos/1/21#21
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/18/25#25
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=126
> And I really don't give a rat's
Duwaynea Anderson
> The truth is that you gobbled this up hook, line, and sinker, until
> you had your "revelation".
I'm an atheist. If you read my book, "Farewell to Eden: Coming to
terms with Mormonism and science"
you'd know that.
You really shouldn't try to comment on a book you haven't read.
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 13, 4:22 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The truth is that you gobbled this up hook, line, and sinker, until
> > you had your "revelation".
>
> I'm an atheist.
I think you think you're an atheist, much as you thought you were a
Mormon. To you, atheism is just another religion. Soon you will have
an epiphany - that atheism cannot fulfill your needs, and, in your
infantile way you'll be off to the next thing.
If you read my book, "Farewell to Eden: Coming to
> terms with Mormonism and science"
> you'd know that.
LOL! I know what you THINK you are, Du. And I already know what you in
fact are.
>
> You really shouldn't try to comment on a book you haven't read.
I have not tried to comment on your book. If you had half a brain,
you'd know that. I have commented on YOU.
drahcir
Excuse me, but at first you claimed she claimed Bennett was a
SCIENTIST. Now, your pathetic little weasle-brain thinks it can
substitute AUTHORITY and no one will notice.
Duwaynea Anderson
It's verifiable that Deborah did that. What's the point in denying
it?
> Now, your pathetic little weasle-brain thinks it can
> substitute AUTHORITY and no one will notice.
You really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person as a
"scientific authority?"
Sure you do.
But I notice you ignored every one of the issues I posted. Look up
there in the thread title. See that? Sure you do. Those are
Bennett's words. Deborah is relying lock stock and barrel on
Bennett. She hasn't even bothered to provide actual *quotations* from
my book (Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science") to supsport the claims. She just quotes Bennett.
But aligning yourselves with Bennett is like aligning yourself with a
young-earth creationist. Robert Bennett, an apologist for the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) was a prolific
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=129
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=131
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/enos/1/21#21
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/18/25#25
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=126
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jul 13, 9:59 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 13, 4:22 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The truth is that you gobbled this up hook, line, and sinker, until
> > > you had your "revelation".
>
> > I'm an atheist.
>
> I think you think you're an atheist, much as you thought you were a
> Mormon.
I'm sure you have lots of thoughts. Perhaps fairies put them in your
head. Who knows? One things for sure, though. You can't back them
up with anything objective.
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 13, 7:18 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 13, 9:59 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 13, 4:22 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The truth is that you gobbled this up hook, line, and sinker, until
> > > > you had your "revelation".
>
> > > I'm an atheist.
>
> > I think you think you're an atheist, much as you thought you were a
> > Mormon.
>
> I'm sure you have lots of thoughts. Perhaps fairies put them in your
> head. Who knows?
You don't. You're too stupid.
One things for sure, though. You can't back them
> up with anything objective.
Ah, so you don't recall. Long term memory is often a problem in
defective brains. Do a google search for "nouveau atheist" with me as
author.
drahcir
Du, listen, the first thing you need to understand is that you are far
too stupid to be able to mask your silly lies. People are only
laughing at the above attempt at escape. You changed it to "authority"
because she caught you lying about "scientist". You are such a child.
That's all, of course, beside the fact that you misuse the word
"appropriate". I hope you used a dictionary when you wrote your book.
>
> Sure you do.
>
> But I notice you ignored every one of the issues I posted.
You posted no issues. Here's your deal, asshole. You live your life in
perpetual childlike state. You were very happy to accept mormon
nonsense until you had your revelation. Now you're the polar opposite
of what you were in terms of what you believe, but not in terms of
why. As a mormon you were required to go out and proselytize, and now
you have the same childlike approach to your atheism. Insofar as REAL
issues, adult issues, you have snipped, lied, avoided, diverted, done
anything that a lowly and stupid liar can think of to bend and twist a
topic. Our first conversation is a perfect example. Google the
earliest conversation between you and me for a fine example. There are
many others.
Look up
> there in the thread title. See that? Sure you do. Those are
> Bennett's words. Deborah is relying lock stock and barrel on
> Bennett.
Du, understand something. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT DEBORAH IS RELYING
ON. You had a revelation, you wrote a silly book. I am sure there are
more than a few people who will be simply amazed that their
unbelievably idiotic religion is in conflict with the real world. BFD.
This subthread is about one thing: your dishonest attempt to sub
"authority" for "scientist", and your now laughable attempt to deny
you did it.
She hasn't even bothered to provide actual *quotations* from
> my book (Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> science") to supsport the claims. She just quotes Bennett.
Um, did you ever think that maybe it's YOUR job to counter with quotes
from your book. How do you expect her to quote it, to actually buy
your crap? Are you out of your defective mind? I skimmed Bennett. I
can see he's just a mormon loon. I don't care about that - what I care
about is getting at what you are and why you lie.
>
> But aligning yourselves with Bennett
Get a grip, moron. Skimming down the remainder of this reply of yours,
it is evident that you have nothing more of interest to me.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > You really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person as a
> > "scientific authority?"
>
> Du, listen, the first thing you need to understand is that you are far
> too stupid to be able to mask your silly lies.
When you engage in name calling, like that above, it gives the
impression that you lack conviction in the rationality of your
argument.
> People are only
> laughing at the above attempt at escape. You changed it to "authority"
> because she caught you lying about "scientist".
You really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person as a
"scientific authority?"
> You are such a child.
When you engage in name calling, like that above, it gives the
impression that you lack conviction in the rationality of your
argument.
> That's all, of course, beside the fact that you misuse the word
> "appropriate". I hope you used a dictionary when you wrote your book.
>
>
>
> > Sure you do.
>
> > But I notice you ignored every one of the issues I posted.
>
> You posted no issues.
Sure I did. You just ignored them.
Deborah has characterized my book (Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms
with Mormonism and science") as dogmatic, and based on sloppy
reading. In fact, she picked the title of the thread by plagiarizing
a phrase used by Bennett in his review.
But Robert Bennett, an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=129
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=131
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/enos/1/21#21
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/18/25#25
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=126
> Here's your deal, asshole. You live your life in
> perpetual childlike state.
When you engage in name calling, like that above, it gives the
impression that you lack conviction in the rationality of your
argument.
<snip rest of the same>
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jul 13, 11:53 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 7:18 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 13, 9:59 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 13, 4:22 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > The truth is that you gobbled this up hook, line, and sinker, until
> > > > > you had your "revelation".
>
> > > > I'm an atheist.
>
> > > I think you think you're an atheist, much as you thought you were a
> > > Mormon.
>
> > I'm sure you have lots of thoughts. Perhaps fairies put them in your
> > head. Who knows?
>
> You don't. You're too stupid.
When you engage in name calling, like that above, it gives the
impression that you lack conviction in the rationality of your
argument.
>
> One things for sure, though. You can't back them
>
> > up with anything objective.
>
> Ah, so you don't recall. Long term memory is often a problem in
> defective brains. Do a google search for "nouveau atheist" with me as
> author.
Nope. Nothing there that provides objective evidence for your claims.
Duwaynea Anderson
I'll remind you that Deborah brought my book (Farewell to Eden: Coming
to terms with Mormonism and science"
http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/1410753840)
into the discussion.
But now that you have joined her in criticizing the book, you ought to
at least demonstrate that you've read it. So consider this a
challenge (one you will surely fail): Using verifiable quotations
from the book, prove your assertion that I lied in it.
Waiting......
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 4:39 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 11:53 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 13, 7:18 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 13, 9:59 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 13, 4:22 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > The truth is that you gobbled this up hook, line, and sinker, until
> > > > > > you had your "revelation".
>
> > > > > I'm an atheist.
>
> > > > I think you think you're an atheist, much as you thought you were a
> > > > Mormon.
>
> > > I'm sure you have lots of thoughts. Perhaps fairies put them in your
> > > head. Who knows?
>
> > You don't. You're too stupid.
>
> When you engage in name calling, like that above, it gives the
> impression that you lack conviction in the rationality of your
> argument.
I'll take that risk. Wha happin, your incessant drone of "ad hominem"
became tiresome even for an infantile creep like you?
>
>
>
> > One things for sure, though. You can't back them
>
> > > up with anything objective.
>
> > Ah, so you don't recall. Long term memory is often a problem in
> > defective brains. Do a google search for "nouveau atheist" with me as
> > author.
>
> Nope. Nothing there that provides objective evidence for your claims.
A true zealot - you can't see truth any more easily as a faux atheist
than you could as a mormon. Remember this?:
On Jun 11, 3:03 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2:49 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Duwaynea, what would you do if God told you to commit Genocide?
Tell him no. I'm an atheist, you know.
If you were an atheist, you wouldn't be able tell "him" anything,
since there is no "him". Telling him no means you think he's there,
you just don't feel like obeying him. See what I mean, Du? You are
clueless - you have this new religion called "atheism" that you
converted to, but really don't understand anything about it, you just
know that today you like it better than mormonism, kinda like today
you changed from chocolate to vanilla. Everything you post is
completely consistent, Du, in that it clearly shows you to be a
child.
DoD
LOL.....Who is this guy? Is he someone new?
drahcir
wrote:
>
> > > You really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person as a
> > > "scientific authority?"
>
> > Du, listen, the first thing you need to understand is that you are far
> > too stupid to be able to mask your silly lies.
>
> When you engage in name calling, like that above, it gives the
> impression that you lack conviction in the rationality of your
> argument.
As I have already told you, I'll take that risk. So now what's going
to happen is that instead of droning about "ad hominem", you'll drone
about "name calling". Did you know, Du, that a name is a noun, but
"stupid" as used above is an adjective, therefore the above cannot be
name calling? You'd better accuse me of "descriptor calling", eh,
asshole?
>
> > People are only
> > laughing at the above attempt at escape. You changed it to "authority"
> > because she caught you lying about "scientist".
>
> You really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person as a
> "scientific authority?"
You misuse the word
"appropriate". I hope you used a dictionary when you wrote your book.
(see, I can cut and paste, too!)
>
> > You are such a child.
>
> When you engage in name calling, like that above, it gives the
> impression that you lack conviction in the rationality of your
> argument.
As I have already told you, I'll take that risk.
>
> > That's all, of course, beside the fact that you misuse the word
> > "appropriate". I hope you used a dictionary when you wrote your book.
>
> > > Sure you do.
>
> > > But I notice you ignored every one of the issues I posted.
>
> > You posted no issues.
>
> Sure I did. You just ignored them.
No, you didn't. You just babbled infantile questions ad nauseam. Being
a child, you think they're issues. Maybe someday you'll grow up and
realize they aren't.
>
> Deborah has characterized my book (Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms
> with Mormonism and science") as dogmatic, and based on sloppy
> reading. In fact, she picked the title of the thread by plagiarizing
> a phrase used by Bennett in his review.
Did she claim the phrase as her own, Du, or was it clear in the post
that she was quoting? When you answer, you'd better cite. But of
course, you won't answer.
>
> But Robert Bennett, an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of
> Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) was a prolific writer for the LDS
> Church. Among his various “scholarly” attempts are this rather
> comical attempt to defend the Book of Mormon’s depiction of ancient
> Americans that domesticated horses. Read it here.
I don't give a shit about it. Mormonism is for lost little children
like you who will lap up any drivel that allows them to feel cozy. I
have no interest in the below garbage.
As I have already told you, I'll take that risk.
>
> <snip rest of the same>
Du snips what he can't contend with. Like a little boy hiding his head
in the sofa cushions, making all the bad scary go away.
drahcir
The complexity of the human brain is what allows Beethoven, but that
same complexity, when things fuck up, can result in the most
unpredictable and sometimes amusing defects. Du is simply one of the
more unusual of those defects. Enjoy while you can - he won't be
around long.
Count 1
LOL.....Who is this guy? Is he someone new?
He's an ex-mormon, now fascist-atheist. He's been demanding conformity to
his opinions and beliefs for several weeks now. Deb found a review of a
'book' he wrote which criticizes his methods and arguments in much the same
way we criticize him here.
At least he's consistent.
Some of the strangest people I have known were ex-mormons. Something in the
water in Utah?
Tapestry
For your utter stupidity, and jumping the gun, as always you dumb
fucking
puke ...
waporized ...
DoD
I have never understood Mormonism or Atheism.... If I weren't
Catholic, I would be an Agnostic. I would say maybe Jewish, but I
doubt I could hang with all the rules.
drahcir
Not at all. Religion is like an addictive substance - some people get
easily hooked, and some seem immune. Mormonism has got to be the
wackiest religion out there, but it didn't start in utah. I don't
know how much you know about it, but Joseph Smith was a philanderer
and convicted con man before god decided to reveal the truth to him
via some golden plates that mysteriously then disappeared without a
trace. One thing he has in common with Mo is that he figured the
easiest way to have sex with more than one woman at a time was to have
god ok it. They should make gullibility illegal. I visited with
friends over the weekend, and Elena's cousin and her husband from
Moscow were there. Her cousin's father is a Muslim and she is
officially Muslim. They don't give a shit about religion and said the
one thing good that the communists did was to drive a stake through
the heart of religion, although of course not without the pressure
people are relapsing.
DoD
Uh-oh... A new member of the "Omni recently made an ass out of me"
club?
Count 1
"DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3668ad54-6bbc-4e1a...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
***
I don't think so - I don't recognize the name. I think he was responding to
someone else.
Picasso Renoir Hilton
> "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Nope.
You are so dense, you don't know how to read usenet, dunce.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > You really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person as a
> > "scientific authority?"
>
> You misuse the word
> "appropriate".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appropriate
Second definition:
" to set apart for or assign to a particular purpose or use
<appropriate money for the research program>"
So, you really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person
as a "scientific authority?"
> I hope you used a dictionary when you wrote your book.
Why don't you read it before you trying commenting on it?
"Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and science,"
http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/1410753840
> (see, I can cut and paste, too!)
>
>
>
> > > You are such a child.
>
> > When you engage in name calling, like that above, it gives the
> > impression that you lack conviction in the rationality of your
> > argument.
>
> As I have already told you, I'll take that risk.
>
>
>
> > > That's all, of course, beside the fact that you misuse the word
> > > "appropriate". I hope you used a dictionary when you wrote your book.
>
> > > > Sure you do.
>
> > > > But I notice you ignored every one of the issues I posted.
>
> > > You posted no issues.
>
> > Sure I did. You just ignored them.
>
> No, you didn't. You just babbled infantile questions ad nauseam. Being
> a child, you think they're issues. Maybe someday you'll grow up and
> realize they aren't.
When you engage in name calling you give the impression that you lack
conviction in the rationality of your argument.
>
>
>
> > Deborah has characterized my book (Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms
> > with Mormonism and science") as dogmatic, and based on sloppy
> > reading. In fact, she picked the title of the thread by plagiarizing
> > a phrase used by Bennett in his review.
>
> Did she claim the phrase as her own, Du, or was it clear in the post
> that she was quoting? When you answer, you'd better cite. But of
> course, you won't answer.
Plagerize: "use (another's production) without crediting the source."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
Please point out the credited source in the title.
>
>
>
> > But Robert Bennett, an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of
> > Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) was a prolific writer for the LDS
> > Church. Among his various “scholarly” attempts are this rather
> > comical attempt to defend the Book of Mormon’s depiction of ancient
> > Americans that domesticated horses. Read it here.
>
> I don't give a shit about it. Mormonism
Then you should stop defending Deborah's exclusive use of Mormon
apologists in criticizing my book.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > When you engage in name calling, like that above, it gives the
> > impression that you lack conviction in the rationality of your
> > argument.
>
> I'll take that risk.
That's fine.
> Wha happin, your incessant drone of "ad hominem"
> became tiresome even for an infantile creep like you?
When you engage in name calling, it gives the impression that you lack
conviction in the rationality of your argument.
>
>
>
> > > One things for sure, though. You can't back them
>
> > > > up with anything objective.
>
> > > Ah, so you don't recall. Long term memory is often a problem in
> > > defective brains. Do a google search for "nouveau atheist" with me as
> > > author.
>
> > Nope. Nothing there that provides objective evidence for your claims.
>
> A true zealot - you can't see truth
Since you didn't post any objective evidence you can hardly accuse
anyone of not "seeing it."
> any more easily as a faux atheist
> than you could as a mormon. Remember this?:
>
> On Jun 11, 3:03 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 11, 2:49 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > Duwaynea, what would you do if God told you to commit Genocide?
>
> Tell him no. I'm an atheist, you know.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lxtg25
>
> If you were an atheist, you wouldn't be able tell "him" anything,
> since there is no "him".
The question was hypothetical.
Duwaynea Anderson
> LOL.....Who is this guy? Is he someone new?
> ***
>
> He's an ex-mormon, now fascist-atheist. He's been demanding conformity to
> his opinions
Hardly. I've been asking people if they unconditionally condemn
genocide and killing children that have been taken as prisoners of
war. You don't need to agree with me, if you don't like.
> and beliefs for several weeks now. Deb found a review of a
> 'book' he wrote which criticizes his methods and arguments in much the same
> way we criticize him here.
Deborah picked up a review by Robbert Bennett -- a paid apologist for
the Mormon Church. Besides the paid LDS apologists the book has
generally received favorable reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/1410753840
Before you start relying on Bennett as a credible source, you might
consider that among his various “scholarly” attempts are this rather
comical attempt to defend the Book of Mormon’s depiction of ancient
Americans that domesticated horses. Read it here.
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=129
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=131
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/enos/1/21#21
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/18/25#25
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=126
>
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 8:47 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > When you engage in name calling, like that above, it gives the
> > > impression that you lack conviction in the rationality of your
> > > argument.
>
> > I'll take that risk.
>
> That's fine.
Like I give a shit about your approval.
>
> > Wha happin, your incessant drone of "ad hominem"
> > became tiresome even for an infantile creep like you?
>
> When you engage in name calling, it gives the impression that you lack
> conviction in the rationality of your argument.
>
Poor robot couldn't figure out how to answer the question, so he went
back to cut and paste.
> > > > One things for sure, though. You can't back them
>
> > > > > up with anything objective.
>
> > > > Ah, so you don't recall. Long term memory is often a problem in
> > > > defective brains. Do a google search for "nouveau atheist" with me as
> > > > author.
>
> > > Nope. Nothing there that provides objective evidence for your claims.
>
> > A true zealot - you can't see truth
>
> Since you didn't post any objective evidence you can hardly accuse
> anyone of not "seeing it."
Everyone but you considers this evidence:
On Jun 11, 3:03 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2:49 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Duwaynea, what would you do if God told you to commit Genocide?
> Tell him no. I'm an atheist, you know.
Regarding the rest, you snipped it away as usual, so for a child like
you, that means it doesn't exist anymore.
>
> > any more easily as a faux atheist
> > than you could as a mormon. Remember this?:
>
> > On Jun 11, 3:03 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 11, 2:49 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > Duwaynea, what would you do if God told you to commit Genocide?
>
> > Tell him no. I'm an atheist, you know.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/lxtg25
>
> > If you were an atheist, you wouldn't be able tell "him" anything,
> > since there is no "him".
>
> The question was hypothetical.
LOL! Du furrowed his brow, scratched his pinhead, and came up with
this lame response.
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 9:22 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > LOL.....Who is this guy? Is he someone new?
> > ***
>
> > He's an ex-mormon, now fascist-atheist. He's been demanding conformity to
> > his opinions
>
> Hardly. I've been asking people if they unconditionally condemn
> genocide and killing children that have been taken as prisoners of
> war. You don't need to agree with me, if you don't like.
>
> > and beliefs for several weeks now. Deb found a review of a
> > 'book' he wrote which criticizes his methods and arguments in much the same
> > way we criticize him here.
>
> Deborah picked up a review by Robbert Bennett -- a paid apologist for
> the Mormon Church. Besides the paid LDS apologists the book has
> generally received favorable reviews:
Yes, all from people who were not bright enough to see what bullshit
mormonism is without paying money for some book written by a loser.
Anyone who needs more than 2 minutes of familiarity with moron tenets
and cannot see what a sham it is has problems. But, I gotta hand it to
ya, you turned your "revelation" into profit. Can't wait for the
sequel, when you see the light and discover islam.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/14107...
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jul 14, 2:24 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 14, 8:47 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > When you engage in name calling, like that above, it gives the
> > > > impression that you lack conviction in the rationality of your
> > > > argument.
>
> > > I'll take that risk.
>
> > That's fine.
>
> Like I give a shit about your approval.
>
> > > Wha happin, your incessant drone of "ad hominem"
> > > became tiresome even for an infantile creep like you?
>
> > When you engage in name calling, it gives the impression that you lack
> > conviction in the rationality of your argument.
>
> Poor robot couldn't figure out how to answer the question,
The question was based on a false premise. But it is a nice example
of both the ad hominem and name calling. Both classic styles of bogus
reasoning. Learn more here:
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
> so he went
> back to cut and paste.
>
> > > > > One things for sure, though. You can't back them
>
> > > > > > up with anything objective.
>
> > > > > Ah, so you don't recall. Long term memory is often a problem in
> > > > > defective brains. Do a google search for "nouveau atheist" with me as
> > > > > author.
>
> > > > Nope. Nothing there that provides objective evidence for your claims.
>
> > > A true zealot - you can't see truth
>
> > Since you didn't post any objective evidence you can hardly accuse
> > anyone of not "seeing it."
>
> Everyone but you considers this evidence:
You need to read my response before you simply paste the same
"evidence" over again.
If I asked you what you'd do if the Easter Bunny jumped out from
behind a bush, and you said you'd be startled, that hypothetical
question and answer would not imply that you believe in the Easter
Bunny.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jul 14, 2:30 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 9:22 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > LOL.....Who is this guy? Is he someone new?
> > > ***
>
> > > He's an ex-mormon, now fascist-atheist. He's been demanding conformity to
> > > his opinions
>
> > Hardly. I've been asking people if they unconditionally condemn
> > genocide and killing children that have been taken as prisoners of
> > war. You don't need to agree with me, if you don't like.
>
> > > and beliefs for several weeks now. Deb found a review of a
> > > 'book' he wrote which criticizes his methods and arguments in much the same
> > > way we criticize him here.
>
> > Deborah picked up a review by Robbert Bennett -- a paid apologist for
> > the Mormon Church. Besides the paid LDS apologists the book has
> > generally received favorable reviews:
>
> Yes, all from people who were not bright enough to see what bullshit
> mormonism is without paying money for some book written by a loser.
You need to read the reviews of the book before you start reviewing
the reviewers. One (Matt Young) is a highly respected scientist, and
a Jew.
http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/1410753840
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 9:03 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > You really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person as a
> > > "scientific authority?"
>
> > You misuse the word
> > "appropriate".
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appropriate
>
> Second definition:
>
> " to set apart for or assign to a particular purpose or use
> <appropriate money for the research program>"
>
> So, you really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person
> as a "scientific authority?"
BWAHAHAHA! Du: dictionary says black is black, so you really don't
understand that black is white?
LISTEN, ASSHOLE, I DON'T THINK EVEN YOU ARE THAT STUPID. What you are
doing now is PRETENDING that the dictionary confirms your misuse of
the word. You are trying to pull the wool over readers' eyes, but you
are far, far too stupid. You are simply a born liar, and this is just
one more example. BTW, the word you wanted is "casting" .
> > I hope you used a dictionary when you wrote your book.
>
> Why don't you read it before you trying commenting on it?
Because I am not some lowly fool who accepts something as stupid as
mormon. Only such a fool would find your book of interest.
>
> "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and science,"
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/14107...
>
>
>
> > (see, I can cut and paste, too!)
>
> > > > You are such a child.
>
> > > When you engage in name calling, like that above, it gives the
> > > impression that you lack conviction in the rationality of your
> > > argument.
>
> > As I have already told you, I'll take that risk.
>
> > > > That's all, of course, beside the fact that you misuse the word
> > > > "appropriate". I hope you used a dictionary when you wrote your book.
>
> > > > > Sure you do.
>
> > > > > But I notice you ignored every one of the issues I posted.
>
> > > > You posted no issues.
>
> > > Sure I did. You just ignored them.
>
> > No, you didn't. You just babbled infantile questions ad nauseam. Being
> > a child, you think they're issues. Maybe someday you'll grow up and
> > realize they aren't.
>
> When you engage in name calling you give the impression that you lack
> conviction in the rationality of your argument.
I'll take that risk. (let's see how long this asshole can keep it up)
>
>
>
> > > Deborah has characterized my book (Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms
> > > with Mormonism and science") as dogmatic, and based on sloppy
> > > reading. In fact, she picked the title of the thread by plagiarizing
> > > a phrase used by Bennett in his review.
>
> > Did she claim the phrase as her own, Du, or was it clear in the post
> > that she was quoting? When you answer, you'd better cite. But of
> > course, you won't answer.
>
> Plagerize: "use (another's production) without crediting the source."
Gee, when I look up "plagerize" at dictionary.com, I don't find
anything. Do you think there's a problem at dictionary.com, asshole?
OR DID YOU LIE YET AGAIN.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
"Plagerize" isn't at merriam, either, asshole. You lied yet again.
That's besides the fact that she DID credit the source.
>
> Please point out the credited source in the title.
Please fuck yourself, moron. The credit was made crystal clear in the
post. Not having attribution in the "title" (what normal people call
the subject) is irrelevant.
LOL! This asshole's a published author and he writes "plagerize". What
a world...
>
>
>
> > > But Robert Bennett, an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of
> > > Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) was a prolific writer for the LDS
> > > Church. Among his various “scholarly” attempts are this rather
> > > comical attempt to defend the Book of Mormon’s depiction of ancient
> > > Americans that domesticated horses. Read it here.
>
> > I don't give a shit about it. Mormonism
>
> Then you should stop defending Deborah's exclusive use of Mormon
> apologists in criticizing my book.
CITE WHERE I DEFENDED THIS USE OR BE PROVEN YET AGAIN A LIAR. You just
can't go very long without lying, can you, du?
DoD
wrote:
> If I asked you what you'd do if the Easter Bunny jumped out from
> behind a bush, and you said you'd be startled, that hypothetical
> question and answer would not imply that you believe in the Easter
> Bunny.
Who would answer it like that? The E.B. is a bad example for me,
because I have no idea on what an E.B. is.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > " to set apart for or assign to a particular purpose or use
> > <appropriate money for the research program>"
>
> > So, you really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person
> > as a "scientific authority?"
>
> BWAHAHAHA! Du: dictionary says black is black,
No, that's not what the dictionary says. It defines "appropriate" as
"to set apart for or assign to a particular purpose or use"
So, you really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person
as a "scientific authority?"
>so you really don't
> understand that black is white?
>
> LISTEN, ASSHOLE, I DON'T THINK EVEN YOU ARE THAT STUPID.
When you engage in name calling, it gives the impression that you lack
confidence in the rationality of your argument.
> What you are
> doing now is PRETENDING that the dictionary confirms your misuse of
> the word. You are trying to pull the wool over readers' eyes, but you
> are far, far too stupid. You are simply a born liar, and this is just
> one more example. BTW, the word you wanted is "casting" .
>
> > > I hope you used a dictionary when you wrote your book.
>
> > Why don't you read it before you trying commenting on it?
>
> Because I am not some lowly fool who accepts something as stupid as
> mormon. Only such a fool would find your book of interest.
You find it of enough "interest" to comment on it. But only a fool
comments on a book they haven't even read.
> ...
>
> read more »
Duwaynea Anderson
Regardless, you wouldn't assume that a person answering as I described
actually believes in the Easter Bunny. Not on the basis of the
hypothetical example that was presented.
DoD
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 1:04 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 14, 2:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 12:33 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If I asked you what you'd do if the Easter Bunny jumped out from
> > > behind a bush, and you said you'd be startled, that hypothetical
> > > question and answer would not imply that you believe in the Easter
> > > Bunny.
>
> > Who would answer it like that? The E.B. is a bad example for me,
> > because I have no idea on what an E.B. is.
>
> Regardless, you wouldn't assume that a person answering as I described
> actually believes in the Easter Bunny. Not on the basis of the
> hypothetical example that was presented.
Again, that is a bad example.. How you described the question and
answer is not what I would expect the way the general public would
answer.. Same thing with Santa Clause. You have to choose a better
example.
Count 1
"Duwaynea Anderson" <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:936d3040-ba97-49fa...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 9:22 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> LOL.....Who is this guy? Is he someone new?
> ***
>
> He's an ex-mormon, now fascist-atheist. He's been demanding conformity to
> his opinions
Hardly. I've been asking people if they unconditionally condemn
genocide and killing children that have been taken as prisoners of
war. You don't need to agree with me, if you don't like.
****
You've been demanding conformity to your viewpoint and denigrating theists
who offer opposing views. You've twisted responses to something
unrecognizable, and consistently ignore scenarios challenging your
assumptions. You take atheism to an extreme, where it becomes the blinding
truth as opposed to just another idea (which is what it is).
You are (or behave like) a fascist. I'm sorry mormonism fucked you up so
much. But it's time to get over it and let other people have their truth.
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 12:56 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > " to set apart for or assign to a particular purpose or use
> > > <appropriate money for the research program>"
>
> > > So, you really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person
> > > as a "scientific authority?"
>
> > BWAHAHAHA! Du: dictionary says black is black,
>
> No, that's not what the dictionary says. It defines "appropriate" as
> "to set apart for or assign to a particular purpose or use"
>
> So, you really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person
> as a "scientific authority?"
Hehe, du, let's just let readers decide if "appropriating someone as a
scientific authority" means casting someone as a scientific authority,
shall we? Most here know that appropriating, say, money for a project
means setting money aside for that project, not casting the money as
that project.
>
> >so you really don't
> > understand that black is white?
>
> > LISTEN, ASSHOLE, I DON'T THINK EVEN YOU ARE THAT STUPID.
>
> When you engage in name calling, it gives the impression that you lack
> confidence in the rationality of your argument.
I'll take that risk.
>
> > What you are
> > doing now is PRETENDING that the dictionary confirms your misuse of
> > the word. You are trying to pull the wool over readers' eyes, but you
> > are far, far too stupid. You are simply a born liar, and this is just
> > one more example. BTW, the word you wanted is "casting" .
>
> > > > I hope you used a dictionary when you wrote your book.
>
> > > Why don't you read it before you trying commenting on it?
>
> > Because I am not some lowly fool who accepts something as stupid as
> > mormon. Only such a fool would find your book of interest.
>
> You find it of enough "interest" to comment on it. But only a fool
> comments on a book they haven't even read.
Not true. I have often commented on a book just by reading reviews.
And I am sure most here will agree that I am anything but a fool. By
reading reviews of your book, I can safely say that it will only be of
interest to someone who needs convincing that mormon is a load of
shit. I don't.
> ...
>
> read more »
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 12:33 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 2:24 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 8:47 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > When you engage in name calling, like that above, it gives the
> > > > > impression that you lack conviction in the rationality of your
> > > > > argument.
>
> > > > I'll take that risk.
>
> > > That's fine.
>
> > Like I give a shit about your approval.
>
> > > > Wha happin, your incessant drone of "ad hominem"
> > > > became tiresome even for an infantile creep like you?
>
> > > When you engage in name calling, it gives the impression that you lack
> > > conviction in the rationality of your argument.
>
> > Poor robot couldn't figure out how to answer the question,
>
> The question was based on a false premise.
Nope. You stated the same stale thing in a different way because you
realized you were getting on everyone's nerves, including your own.
Premise stands.
But it is a nice example
> of both the ad hominem and name calling. Both classic styles of bogus
> reasoning. Learn more here:
Listen, asshole, do you deny that after every time anyone called you
anything unflattering, up until recently, you cited ad hominem? YES OR
NO?
>
> http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html
>
>
>
> > so he went
> > back to cut and paste.
>
> > > > > > One things for sure, though. You can't back them
>
> > > > > > > up with anything objective.
>
> > > > > > Ah, so you don't recall. Long term memory is often a problem in
> > > > > > defective brains. Do a google search for "nouveau atheist" with me as
> > > > > > author.
>
> > > > > Nope. Nothing there that provides objective evidence for your claims.
>
> > > > A true zealot - you can't see truth
>
> > > Since you didn't post any objective evidence you can hardly accuse
> > > anyone of not "seeing it."
>
> > Everyone but you considers this evidence:
>
> You need to read my response before you simply paste the same
> "evidence" over again.
>
> If I asked you what you'd do if the Easter Bunny jumped out from
> behind a bush, and you said you'd be startled, that hypothetical
> question and answer would not imply that you believe in the Easter
> Bunny.
Du trying to sound intellectual. I love it. Not the same as an
"ATHEIST" saying what he'd tell god, sorry. You slipped up, you showed
your true colors, and now are scurrying around like a chicken without
a head to try to undo it.
drahcir
forgot this:
> > Then you should stop defending Deborah's exclusive use of Mormon
> > apologists in criticizing my book.
> CITE WHERE I DEFENDED THIS USE OR BE PROVEN YET AGAIN A LIAR. You just
> can't go very long without lying, can you, du?
My, my, my, my, my, how could you be sooooo forgetful??
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 12:37 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 2:30 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 9:22 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > LOL.....Who is this guy? Is he someone new?
> > > > ***
>
> > > > He's an ex-mormon, now fascist-atheist. He's been demanding conformity to
> > > > his opinions
>
> > > Hardly. I've been asking people if they unconditionally condemn
> > > genocide and killing children that have been taken as prisoners of
> > > war. You don't need to agree with me, if you don't like.
>
> > > > and beliefs for several weeks now. Deb found a review of a
> > > > 'book' he wrote which criticizes his methods and arguments in much the same
> > > > way we criticize him here.
>
> > > Deborah picked up a review by Robbert Bennett -- a paid apologist for
> > > the Mormon Church. Besides the paid LDS apologists the book has
> > > generally received favorable reviews:
>
> > Yes, all from people who were not bright enough to see what bullshit
> > mormonism is without paying money for some book written by a loser.
>
> You need to read the reviews of the book before you start reviewing
> the reviewers. One (Matt Young) is a highly respected scientist, and
> a Jew.
>
I've read many of them. As I previously said, every one I read (not
including the negative ones nor yours, you dumbfuck) was the same
story - some pitiful mormon sheep who lacks the sense to realize what
stupidity they have given their life over to voicing utter awe at the
wonderful revelations of the excommunicated asshole who now fancies
himself an atheist - the very same revelations that should be self-
evident to anyone with an IQ above 50. What a fucking world...
>
> > Anyone who needs more than 2 minutes of familiarity with moron
that was a typo, i swear...
Count 1
"Picasso Renoir Hilton" <ihaveth...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:8ed393d5-e00a-4067...@n30g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
***
Oh - so you are a member of the "Omni recently made an ass out of me" club.
My guess is I didn't have to work too hard.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > So, you really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person
> > as a "scientific authority?"
>
> Hehe, du, let's just let readers decide if "appropriating someone as a
> scientific authority" means casting someone as a scientific authority,
That's what's called a strawman argument. I never said the two
statements are the same. I simply said that Deborah tried to
appropriate Bennett as a scientific authority. She did that when she
posted Bennett's negative review of my book, "Farewell to Eden: Coming
to terms with Mormonism and science."
http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/1410753840
The problem with appropriating Robert Bennett as a scientific reviewer
is that he's nothing of the sort. Bennett is an apologist for the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) was a
prolific writer for the LDS Church. Among his various “scholarly”
attempts are this rather comical attempt to defend the Book of
Mormon’s depiction of ancient Americans that domesticated horses.
Read it here.
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=129
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=131
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/enos/1/21#21
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/18/25#25
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=126
In short, Bennett isn’t a “scientist.” He’s an apologist that has a
long track record of writing intellectually dubious junk for the LDS
Church to prop up the Book of Mormon. He has a record of lying about
what the Book of Mormon says, as well as lying about what LDS critics
say.
And he’s Deborah’s “scientist” of choice.
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
> You "forgot" to tell the readership all about "plagerize". And you
> forgot this:
>
> > > Then you should stop defending Deborah's exclusive use of Mormon
> > > apologists in criticizing my book.
> > CITE WHERE I DEFENDED THIS USE
Pretty much every post in this thread.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > > > > Wha happin, your incessant drone of "ad hominem"
> > > > > became tiresome even for an infantile creep like you?
>
> > > > When you engage in name calling, it gives the impression that you lack
> > > > conviction in the rationality of your argument.
>
> > > Poor robot couldn't figure out how to answer the question,
>
> > The question was based on a false premise.
>
> Nope.
Sure it was. You asked "Wha [sic] happin, your incessant drone of "ad
hominem became [sic] became tiresome even for an infantile creep like
you?"
See the false premise?
And, I might add, when you engage in name calling like that you give
the impression that you lack confidence in the rationality of your
argument.
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > > Yes, all from people who were not bright enough to see what bullshit
> > > mormonism is without paying money for some book written by a loser.
>
> > You need to read the reviews of the book before you start reviewing
> > the reviewers. One (Matt Young) is a highly respected scientist, and
> > a Jew.
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/14107...
>
> I've read many of them.
Then you should have known better than to lie by saying the positive
review were "all from people who were not bright enough to see what
bullshit mormonism [sic] is."
>As I previously said, every one I read
No. You didn't say "every one I read." You just added that.
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
> "Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:936d3040-ba97-49fa...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 14, 9:22 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > LOL.....Who is this guy? Is he someone new?
> > ***
>
> > He's an ex-mormon, now fascist-atheist. He's been demanding conformity to
> > his opinions
>
> Hardly. I've been asking people if they unconditionally condemn
> genocide and killing children that have been taken as prisoners of
> war. You don't need to agree with me, if you don't like.
> ****
>
> You've been demanding conformity to your viewpoint
Hardly. I've been asking people if they unconditionally condemn
genocide and killing children that have been taken as prisoners of
war. You don't need to agree with me, if you don't like.
> and denigrating theists
> who offer opposing views.
Theists that say it's okay to commit genocide for god and to commit
other war crimes for god *should* be denigrated. After all, that's
exactly the sort of religious terrorists that committed the crimes of
9/11.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jul 14, 3:09 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 1:04 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 2:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 14, 12:33 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If I asked you what you'd do if the Easter Bunny jumped out from
> > > > behind a bush, and you said you'd be startled, that hypothetical
> > > > question and answer would not imply that you believe in the Easter
> > > > Bunny.
>
> > > Who would answer it like that? The E.B. is a bad example for me,
> > > because I have no idea on what an E.B. is.
>
> > Regardless, you wouldn't assume that a person answering as I described
> > actually believes in the Easter Bunny. Not on the basis of the
> > hypothetical example that was presented.
>
> Again, that is a bad example..
Well, that's you opinion. I happen to think it's a perfectly good
example.
But, at any rate, drahcir's notion that answering a hypothetical
question implies belief in the hypothetical assumptions is clearly
absurd.
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2:50 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You "forgot" to tell the readership all about "plagerize". And you
> > forgot this:
>
> > > > Then you should stop defending Deborah's exclusive use of Mormon
> > > > apologists in criticizing my book.
> > > CITE WHERE I DEFENDED THIS USE
>
> Pretty much every post in this thread.
LOL! Of course, you can't cite because, yet again, you lied. I think
you need to pray to the god you don't believe in to ask his
forgiveness.
Duwaynea Anderson
So, are you saying Deborah was wrong to cite Robert Bennett's negative
review, while ignoring that of Matt Young, a distinguished Jewish
scientist?
Count 1
On Jul 14, 1:24 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:936d3040-ba97-49fa...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 14, 9:22 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > LOL.....Who is this guy? Is he someone new?
> > ***
>
> > He's an ex-mormon, now fascist-atheist. He's been demanding conformity
> > to
> > his opinions
>
> Hardly. I've been asking people if they unconditionally condemn
> genocide and killing children that have been taken as prisoners of
> war. You don't need to agree with me, if you don't like.
> ****
>
> You've been demanding conformity to your viewpoint
Hardly. I've been asking people if they unconditionally condemn
genocide and killing children that have been taken as prisoners of
war. You don't need to agree with me, if you don't like.
***
I completely disagree with you. You have been up to much more than that.
> and denigrating theists
> who offer opposing views.
Theists that say it's okay to commit genocide for god and to commit
other war crimes for god *should* be denigrated. After all, that's
exactly the sort of religious terrorists that committed the crimes of
9/11.
***
Not. At. All. The 'theists' who committed 9/11 had a very specific
interpretation and ideology they were acting upon. The general, abstract,
broad questions you've been asking haven't given you anywhere near enough
information to allow you to denigrate theists simply because they believe
all good flows from god.
Which brings me back to another point you didn't respond to...
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 7:01 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Yes, all from people who were not bright enough to see what bullshit
> > > > mormonism is without paying money for some book written by a loser.
>
> > > You need to read the reviews of the book before you start reviewing
> > > the reviewers. One (Matt Young) is a highly respected scientist, and
> > > a Jew.
>
> > >http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/14107...
>
> > I've read many of them.
>
> Then you should have known better than to lie by saying the positive
> review were "all from people who were not bright enough to see what
> bullshit mormonism [sic] is."
Ah, let's look at the child du wanting some "get-backsies". I have
PROVEN him a liar on numerous occasion and now he wants tit for tat.
Every positive one I read was exactly as I describe. I invite readers
to go to amazon and read the reviews and see who is lying here.
Oh, also, notice the child's "sic" above. I often don't bother to
capitalize, and du is smarting from my pointing out what a friggin
lying imbecile he was when he tried to claim that he found "plagerize"
in an online dictionary. Are you gonna write "sic" after "du", too,
you asshole?
>
> >As I previously said, every one I read
>
> No. You didn't say "every one I read." You just added that.
Oh geez, du, you are so desperate, you are truly embarrassing
yourself. I invite readers to go back to the last 5 posts just to see
what this desperate loon is pulling. So du, when the conversation was
> Deborah picked up a review by Robbert Bennett -- a paid apologist for
> the Mormon Church. Besides the paid LDS apologists the book has
> generally received favorable reviews:
Yes, all from people who were not bright enough to see what bullshit
mormonism is without paying money for some book written by a loser.
you thought when I said "all", it meant that I had read EVERY SINGLE
REVIEW, all 26, and was claiming that EVERY FAVORABLE ONE was from
people not bright enough to see what bullshit mormonism is. Is that
what you want to try to foist onto the group, du? SAY IT CLEARLY. If
that is the case, I am dreadfully sorry that you were misled. Please
accept my apology - I should have known a confused jumble of neurons
masquerading as a brain, as exists between your ears, would tumble
into that abyss. A thousand pardons. The truth is, I spent perhaps 2.5
minutes with the reivews and I DID NOT READ ONE FAVORABLE REVIEW THAT
WAS NOT AS I DESCRIBED. (I didn't read yours or your son's.) When I
said "all", I mistakenly assumed ALL readers would understand that
only a complete idiot would spend the time necessary to read all of
the reviews, and would understand I meant "all that I had read". I
completely forgot about imbeciles like you, and for that I am deeply
sorry.
You are one sick puppy, du.
> <snip to end>
drahcir
Ah, so now you want to play dumb? Suit yourself. Here's what I am
saying, du. You accused me of defending another poster. I asked you to
cite this defense. You thus far have not cited. You have not cited
because that defense does not exist - yet again, you lied. Why do you
repeatedly lie to complete strangers on usenet, du? Is that what your
none-god teaches you? Perhaps someone with so broad a moral compass
should find himself a god to help him get back on the straight and
narrow, eh?
john.p
If god told me to commit genocide or if I saw the easter bunny, then I'd
check myself into a mental institution.
--
John P.
Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis.--Sigmund Freud
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2:06 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > So, you really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person
> > > as a "scientific authority?"
>
> > Hehe, du, let's just let readers decide if "appropriating someone as a
> > scientific authority" means casting someone as a scientific authority,
>
> That's what's called a strawman argument. I never said the two
> statements are the same.
Of course you didn't. My version is what you SHOULD have said. Take
your strawman and shove it up your ass - you're being purposefully
deceptive.
I simply said that Deborah tried to
> appropriate Bennett as a scientific authority.
You have a bad habit of repeating stuff when you don't know what else
to do. What you said is clear and does not need repetition. What is
also clear is that you inappropriately used the word "appropriate".
Repeating the inappropriateness does not suddenly make it appropriate.
You cited a definition of "appropriate" that was perfectly
appropriate, but that also made no sense in your sentence.
She did that when she
> posted Bennett's negative review of my book, "Farewell to Eden: Coming
> to terms with Mormonism and science."
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/14107...
>
> The problem with appropriating Robert Bennett as a scientific reviewer
Wrong use of "appropriating" again. What the hell is wrong with you,
you got alzheimers or something? Used as a verb, "appropriate" means
to set aside for a particular purpose, as to appropriate money for a
project. Do you think that Deb set bennett aside for a particular
purpose?
> is that he's nothing of the sort. Bennett is an apologist
You're trying to distract from the point, which is your inappropriate
use of "appropriate". It won't work.
No need to read all the blahblah below.
DoD
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 1:14 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 3:09 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 1:04 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 14, 2:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 14, 12:33 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > If I asked you what you'd do if the Easter Bunny jumped out from
> > > > > behind a bush, and you said you'd be startled, that hypothetical
> > > > > question and answer would not imply that you believe in the Easter
> > > > > Bunny.
>
> > > > Who would answer it like that? The E.B. is a bad example for me,
> > > > because I have no idea on what an E.B. is.
>
> > > Regardless, you wouldn't assume that a person answering as I described
> > > actually believes in the Easter Bunny. Not on the basis of the
> > > hypothetical example that was presented.
>
> > Again, that is a bad example..
>
> Well, that's you opinion. I happen to think it's a perfectly good
> example.
No it isn't. If you asked me what I would do if the E.B. jumped out
from behind a bush...My first inclination
would be to say, was this some redneck having a joke, spray painting
E.B. on a rabbits back? That is
quite possible here in the midwest...I wouldn't remotely think there
is a real E.B... The way you answered your question was very
different. How could you answer something you fervently deny exists?
Now, like I said, I have no idea of what an E.B. is supposed to look
like, so if a 6 foot rabbit came around the corner and said.... "Whad
up, yo?" and tossed me a chocolate egg... The first thing I would do
is ask Omni if he put some blotter in my morning coffee.
> But, at any rate, drahcir's notion that answering a hypothetical
> question implies belief in the hypothetical assumptions is clearly
> absurd.
Not quite, yo.....
I could answer that way... and I only sometimes believe in G-d...or
more specifically, I hold out the possibility that
one exists....possibly even the one that is described in some old
documents....But if I were atheist... I would never had said what you
did..
DoD
wrote:
> Hardly. I've been asking people if they unconditionally condemn
> genocide and killing children that have been taken as prisoners of
> war. You don't need to agree with me, if you don't like.
I don't think you will find anyone on here that I talk to that find
what you wrote
above to be acceptable, that is genocide and child murder and or
enslavement.
> > and denigrating theists
> > who offer opposing views.
>
> Theists that say it's okay to commit genocide for god and to commit
> other war crimes for god *should* be denigrated.
Sure...
>After all, that's exactly the sort of religious terrorists that committed the crimes of
> 9/11.
There were all types of excuses for 911 ( and many more if you listen
to the kooks).... I don't believe I recall any of them being known to
saying that G-d directly told them to kill anyone..... A lot of the
reasons were geo-political, with a hint of religion in there....most
likely to give them some *bite* for western idiots, I mean
reporters...
DoD
Do you suffer from post nasal drip?
dsharavi
>>>>>You "forgot" to tell the readership all about "plagerize". And you
>>>>>forgot this:
>>>>>>>Then you should stop defending Deborah's
>>>>>>>exclusive use of Mormon
>>>>>>>apologists in criticizing my book.
>>>>>>CITE WHERE I DEFENDED THIS USE
Cite where I made "exclusive use of Mormon apologists" who <gasp!>
dared! to! CRITICIZE! Duh's drek!
This is merely another of Anderson's lies. I distinctly recall
mentioning that Duh gave himself a five-star review. So did one of his
sons, and a few friends and relatives.
>>On Jul 14, 8:32 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>LOL! Of course, you can't cite because, yet again, you lied.
Cela va sans dire.
>>>I think
>>>you need to pray to the god you don't believe in to ask his
>>>forgiveness.
>>>>>OR BE PROVEN YET AGAIN A LIAR. You just
>>>>>>can't go very long without lying, can you, du?
>>>>>My, my, my, my, my, how could you be sooooo forgetful??
>On Jul 14, 11:48 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>So, are you saying Deborah was wrong to cite Robert
>>Bennett's negative review, while ignoring that of Matt
>>Young, a distinguished Jewish scientist?
On Jul 14, 9:40 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>Ah, so now you want to play dumb?
Dumb, dense, and dishonest. Anderson conveniently forgets I made
reference to his one-time acquaintance, Matt Young. Anderson also
forgets that I posted a few references to Matt Young's articles --
(possibly because Anderson snipped them, by way of denying the fact
that his "acquaintance" Matt Young is a disciple of Rabbi Moredechai
Kaplan. Or maybe Anderson conveniently forgot them because they
contained too many words for his sad old noodle to absorb.
Another Anderson post revisted:
------------------------------------
>On Jun 25, 3:09 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>One of the scientists to review the book is Jewish. He's an
>>acquaintance of mine.
On Jun 25, 3:42 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>It's a given that some of Anderson's best friends......He doesn't know
>them too well, though.
>Here's what he wrote:
>How to Be Religious without Believing in God —and Why
>Matt Young
[large snip by Anderson of Young's appreciation of R Kaplan]
>http://www.iras.org/conferences/book2002_nomap.pdf
Deborah, thanks for posting the stuff by Matt
Are you aware that he gave my book a positive review?
From: Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnderson @gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/bd37ee742da519bf
------------------------------------
Excerpts from that review were also previously posted -- possibly one
of the few reviews that weren't from Anderson's relatives or friends.
Anderson bobbed up and down several times, calling attention to this
"positive review".
“Deborah, did you figure out, yet, that the review by Matt Young was
positive?”
Jun 25 by Duwaynea Anderson
“Matt gave my book a very good review (4 stars).”
Jun 25 by Duwaynea Anderson
“Why do you downplay Matt Young's positive review as a "blurb?" He's a
highly accomplished Jewish scientists. “
Jun 26 by Duwaynea Anderson
“Meanwhile, Deborah, it seems to have completely escaped you that Matt
Young -- a
highly accomplished Jewish scientist -- gave my book high marks.”
Jun 26 by Duwaynea Anderson
There were more Anderson bobbings for attention, but I'm not going to
backtrack them all. But note Anderson's puffery above, as well as how,
like most antisemites, he's impressed by "Jewishness".
>Suit yourself. Here's what I am
>saying, du. You accused me of defending another poster. I asked you to
>cite this defense. You thus far have not cited. You have not cited
>because that defense does not exist - yet again, you lied.
What else is new? Incidentally, here's some of that "positive" and
"very good review" with "high marks" from Duh's good friend:
Up from Literalism, October 15, 2005
By Matt Young
“I met Duwayne Anderson many years ago, at a conference on fiber
optics. I was therefore intrigued recently when I heard from him again
and received a copy of his book. “
“I have no interest in the Mormon church, but I read the early
chapters and the "Final Thoughts" with keen interest.”
“I read Mr. Anderson's chapter, "What Is Science?" That chapter
explains in simple, concrete terms how science works.”
“I skipped many pages and came to the "Final Thoughts," which I
interpreted as a plea to abandon the literalist interpretation of the
Mormon scriptures but retain the ethical and spiritual aspects of the
culture.”
http://www.amazon.com/review/RG3T1NODGDNB8
"Why do you
>repeatedly lie to complete strangers on usenet, du? Is that what your
>none-god teaches you? Perhaps someone with so broad a moral compass
>should find himself a god to help him get back on the straight and
>narrow, eh?
lol
Even if Duh tries to find a human to help him back, it probably won't
be his one-time acquaintance, who writes:
How to Find Meaning in Religion without Believing in God
Matt Young
“I used to be a nonpracticing Jew; now I am a sort-of-practicing
Reform Jew. Reading the influential rabbi Mordecai Kaplan convinced me
you didn't have to believe in God to be Jewish (or religious, in a
generalized sense of that word). To Kaplan, a Reconstructionist rabbi,
Judaism is not a religion but rather an "evolving religious
civilization," where the key word is "evolving."
“I was brought up in a secular-Jewish household, and I find a lot that
is meaningful in that culture. Obviously, we often have more in common
with people who share our background than with others. One way to
associate with fellow Jews is to read the books, sing the songs, watch
the plays, and generally take part in the sancta of that subculture.
Religious ritual is an inherent part of the culture, but it has for me
no deeper meaning than fireworks on the Fourth of July. I found myself
able to recite "Blessed are you, Lord our God ..." only when I stopped
understanding the words literally. Instead, I transvalue them into a
way of expressing my belonging to a community and taking part in that
community's rituals, as well as my pleasure at being alive and well
adapted to the universe in which I find myself.”
“You can of course adopt a culture or religion other than your own.
People who intermarry or immigrate often do so. But your own culture
also has a strong claim on your loyalty, and there may be no
contingency that requires you to give it up. When Chaim Weizmann, the
first President of Israel, was asked why the Jewish homeland had to be
in Palestine rather than, say, Uganda, he responded by asking why you
travel many miles to visit your mother when there are lots of other
old ladies closer at hand. My subculture is the one that helped shape
my values, beliefs, and outlook. It is already close at hand. Why
disown it and adopt another?”
http://inside.mines.edu/~mmyoung/FIarticle.htm
Very different from Anderson and his hate-filled screeds.
Deborah
dsharavi
> If god told me to commit genocide or if I saw the easter bunny, then I'd
> check myself into a mental institution.
What if what you thought was the easter bunny was really Harvey?
Deborah
dsharavi
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>I'm an atheist.
>
>>>>On Jul 13, 7:18 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>I think you think you're an atheist, much as you thought you were a
>>>>>Mormon.
>
>>>On Jul 13, 11:53 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>I'm sure you have lots of thoughts. Perhaps fairies put them in your
>>>>head. Who knows?
>
>>On Jul 14, 4:39 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>You don't. You're too stupid.
>
>On Jul 14, 9:29 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>When you engage in name calling, like that above, it gives the
>>impression that you lack conviction in the rationality of your
>>argument.
>
>became tiresome even for an infantile creep like you?
Maybe he finally looked up the definition at the link I provided
several times. Maybe. Probably not.
>>>One things for sure, though. You can't back them
>>>>up with anything objective.
>>>Ah, so you don't recall. Long term memory is often a problem in
>>>defective brains. Do a google search for "nouveau atheist" with me as
>>>author.
>>Nope. Nothing there that provides objective evidence for your claims.
>
>A true zealot - you can't see truth any more easily as a faux atheist
>than you could as a mormon. Remember this?:
>On Jun 11, 3:03 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>On Jun 11, 2:49 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>Duwaynea, what would you do if God told you to commit Genocide?
>Tell him no. I'm an atheist, you know.
>http://tinyurl.com/lxtg25
>If you were an atheist, you wouldn't be able tell "him" anything,
>since there is no "him". Telling him no means you think he's there,
>you just don't feel like obeying him.
This quote is more amusing in its implications:
From: Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnderson @gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
“If god told me to commit genocide, I'd tell god to go fuck
himself. “
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/651f4682f3b8c268
Think about it.
>See what I mean, Du? You are
>clueless - you have this new religion called "atheism" that you
>converted to, but really don't understand anything about it, you just
>know that today you like it better than mormonism, kinda like today
>you changed from chocolate to vanilla. Everything you post is
>completely consistent, Du, in that it clearly shows you to be a
>child.
A 54-year-old child, lol, right up there with La Pazza Perks.
Deborah
drahcir
Interesting. Thanks for that post. I like what I see of this Kaplan,
although personally I can't say words the meaning of which I either
don't understand or don't believe. I have often thought that there is
so much to Judaism that is so wise and wonderful, when is there going
to come along a rabbi smart enough to get rid of the superstition and
retain the kernel?
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2:32 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > > Wha happin, your incessant drone of "ad hominem"
> > > > > > became tiresome even for an infantile creep like you?
>
> > > > > When you engage in name calling, it gives the impression that you lack
> > > > > conviction in the rationality of your argument.
>
> > > > Poor robot couldn't figure out how to answer the question,
>
> > > The question was based on a false premise.
>
> > Nope.
>
> Sure it was. You asked "Wha [sic] happin,
you forgot another sic, you sick puppy.
> your incessant drone of "ad
> hominem became [sic] became tiresome even for an infantile creep like
> you?"
Just a reminder to the group. Du's "sic" is intended as a get-backsie
- yet more evidence that he is a child. He wants to "get me" because I
embarrassed him by revealing some of his spelling and grammatical
flaws. Now he will "sic" typos, etc. to seek revenge. Poor du.
>
> See the false premise?
Du, your "condition" is causing hallucinations. See a shrink. Now,
please do tell the group, why did you feel compelled to snip this:
Listen, asshole, do you deny that after every time anyone called you
anything unflattering, up until recently, you cited ad hominem? YES OR
NO?
Hmm, du? Why the snip? When something painful is out of your sight,
does the pain go away? Wittoo du make aw da bad hurty go byebye?
>
> And, I might add, when you engage in name calling like that you give
> the impression that you lack confidence in the rationality of your
> argument.
I'll risk it.
>
> <snip to end>
drahcir
> >>>>>On Jul 13, 9:59 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>>I'm an atheist.
>
> >>>>On Jul 13, 7:18 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>>>>I think you think you're an atheist, much as you thought you were a
> >>>>>Mormon.
>
> >>>On Jul 13, 11:53 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>>I'm sure you have lots of thoughts. Perhaps fairies put them in your
> >>>>head. Who knows?
>
> >>On Jul 14, 4:39 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>>You don't. You're too stupid.
>
> >On Jul 14, 9:29 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >>When you engage in name calling, like that above, it gives the
> >>impression that you lack conviction in the rationality of your
> >>argument.
>
> On Jul 14, 8:47 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >I'll take that risk. Wha happin, your incessant drone of "ad hominem"
> >became tiresome even for an infantile creep like you?
>
> Maybe he finally looked up the definition at the link I provided
> several times. Maybe. Probably not.
LOL! Didn't catch that post.
>
>
>
> >>>One things for sure, though. You can't back them
> >>>>up with anything objective.
> >>>Ah, so you don't recall. Long term memory is often a problem in
> >>>defective brains. Do a google search for "nouveau atheist" with me as
> >>>author.
> >>Nope. Nothing there that provides objective evidence for your claims.
>
> >A true zealot - you can't see truth any more easily as a faux atheist
> >than you could as a mormon. Remember this?:
> >On Jun 11, 3:03 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> >>On Jun 11, 2:49 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>Duwaynea, what would you do if God told you to commit Genocide?
> >Tell him no. I'm an atheist, you know.
> >http://tinyurl.com/lxtg25
> >If you were an atheist, you wouldn't be able tell "him" anything,
> >since there is no "him". Telling him no means you think he's there,
> >you just don't feel like obeying him.
>
> This quote is more amusing in its implications:
>
> From: Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnderson @gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
> “If god told me to commit genocide, I'd tell god to go fuck
> himself. “http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/651f4682f3b...
>
> Think about it.
Didn't catch that one, either. I guess he was more pissed at god that
day.
Duwaynea Anderson
> "Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5e363c0b-e332-4b93...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 14, 1:24 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:936d3040-ba97-49fa...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 14, 9:22 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > LOL.....Who is this guy? Is he someone new?
> > > ***
>
> > > He's an ex-mormon, now fascist-atheist. He's been demanding conformity
> > > to
> > > his opinions
>
> > Hardly. I've been asking people if they unconditionally condemn
> > genocide and killing children that have been taken as prisoners of
> > war. You don't need to agree with me, if you don't like.
> > ****
>
> > You've been demanding conformity to your viewpoint
>
> Hardly. I've been asking people if they unconditionally condemn
> genocide and killing children that have been taken as prisoners of
> war. You don't need to agree with me, if you don't like.
> ***
>
> I completely disagree with you. You have been up to much more than that.
It's a matter of record.
What's really interesting, though, is that the discussion has gone on
for so long, motivated by people like you that get so worked up over
simple little questions like these:
1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
2) Do you unconditionally condemn killing children that have been
taken as prisoners of war?
Any moral/ethical person would condemn those things.
Why won't you?
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jul 14, 10:57 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 7:01 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > > Yes, all from people who were not bright enough to see what bullshit
> > > > > mormonism is without paying money for some book written by a loser.
>
> > > > You need to read the reviews of the book before you start reviewing
> > > > the reviewers. One (Matt Young) is a highly respected scientist, and
> > > > a Jew.
>
> > > >http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/14107...
>
> > > I've read many of them.
>
> > Then you should have known better than to lie by saying the positive
> > review were "all from people who were not bright enough to see what
> > bullshit mormonism [sic] is."
>
> Ah, let's look at the child du wanting some "get-backsies".
When you engage in name calling, it gives the impression that you lack
conviction in the rationality of your argument.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jul 14, 11:48 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 8:32 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 10:51 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 14, 2:50 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You "forgot" to tell the readership all about "plagerize". And you
> > > > > forgot this:
>
> > > > > > > Then you should stop defending Deborah's exclusive use of Mormon
> > > > > > > apologists in criticizing my book.
> > > > > > CITE WHERE I DEFENDED THIS USE
>
> > > > Pretty much every post in this thread.
>
> > > LOL! Of course, you can't cite because, yet again, you lied. I think
> > > you need to pray to the god you don't believe in to ask his
> > > forgiveness.
>
> > > > >OR BE PROVEN YET AGAIN A LIAR. You just
> > > > > > can't go very long without lying, can you, du?
>
> > > > > My, my, my, my, my, how could you be sooooo forgetful??
>
> > So, are you saying Deborah was wrong to cite Robert Bennett's negative
> > review, while ignoring that of Matt Young, a distinguished Jewish
> > scientist?
>
> Ah, so now you want to play dumb? Suit yourself. Here's what I am
> saying, du. You accused me of defending another poster.
I notice you ignored the question. Why?
Are you, or are you not, saying that Deborah was wrong to cite Robert
Bennett's negative review, while ignoring that of Matt Young, a
distinguished Jewish scientist?
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jul 14, 10:50 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 14, 2:06 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > So, you really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person
> > > > as a "scientific authority?"
>
> > > Hehe, du, let's just let readers decide if "appropriating someone as a
> > > scientific authority" means casting someone as a scientific authority,
>
> > That's what's called a strawman argument. I never said the two
> > statements are the same.
>
> Of course you didn't.
Thanks for confirming your strawman argument.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jul 14, 10:00 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 1:14 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 3:09 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 14, 1:04 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 14, 2:41 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 14, 12:33 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > If I asked you what you'd do if the Easter Bunny jumped out from
> > > > > > behind a bush, and you said you'd be startled, that hypothetical
> > > > > > question and answer would not imply that you believe in the Easter
> > > > > > Bunny.
>
> > > > > Who would answer it like that? The E.B. is a bad example for me,
> > > > > because I have no idea on what an E.B. is.
>
> > > > Regardless, you wouldn't assume that a person answering as I described
> > > > actually believes in the Easter Bunny. Not on the basis of the
> > > > hypothetical example that was presented.
>
> > > Again, that is a bad example..
>
> > Well, that's you opinion. I happen to think it's a perfectly good
> > example.
>
> No it isn't.
That's your opinion.
> If you asked me what I would do if the E.B. jumped out
> from behind a bush...My first inclination
> would be to say, was this some redneck having a joke, spray painting
> E.B. on a rabbits back?
So you would simply refuse to engage the hypothetical question.
That's fine.
> That is
> quite possible here in the midwest...I wouldn't remotely think there
> is a real E.B... The way you answered your question was very
> different. How could you answer something you fervently deny exists?
> Now, like I said, I have no idea of what an E.B. is supposed to look
> like, so if a 6 foot rabbit came around the corner and said.... "Whad
> up, yo?" and tossed me a chocolate egg... The first thing I would do
> is ask Omni if he put some blotter in my morning coffee.
>
> > But, at any rate, drahcir's notion that answering a hypothetical
> > question implies belief in the hypothetical assumptions is clearly
> > absurd.
>
> Not quite, yo....I could answer that way... and I only sometimes believe in G-d...or
> more specifically, I hold out the possibility that
> one exists....possibly even the one that is described in some old
> documents....But if I were atheist... I would never had said what you
> did..
Now you are confused about how *you* would answer, and reasonable
logical inferences from someone else's answer.
I'm not telling you how to deal with hypothetical questions. Deal
with them anyway you want.
But when someone claims that the simple act of answering a
hypothetical question implies acceptance of all the hypothetical
elements in the question, they are just being stupid.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jul 14, 9:59 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hardly. I've been asking people if they unconditionally condemn
> > genocide and killing children that have been taken as prisoners of
> > war. You don't need to agree with me, if you don't like.
>
> I don't think you will find anyone on here that I talk to that find
> what you wrote
> above to be acceptable, that is genocide and child murder and or
> enslavement.
Here's a summary with regard to the question: "Do you unconditionally
condemn genocide," here is how the gang of shame stacks up:
1) R. L. Measures: "Not in every case."
2) Susan Cohen: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores
it every time.
3) NefeshBarYochai: "I'm for genocide," and says "I think we should
execute all the gays" See his post of June 17, 2009:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/057c17bfee189e86?
4) Deborah Sharavi: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or
ignores it every time. Published cannibalistic recipe for killing/
eating Palestinians:
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.europe/2008-08/msg00031.pdf
5) Michael Ejercito, "... when God orders genocide; in fact, it is
wrong NOT to commit genocide when God tells you to do so." See his
post of June 2, 2009
6) David: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores it
every time.
7) Drahcir: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or ignores it
every time. Says s/he won’t condemn genocide because it “irritates”
me. Calls the question “childish” See it’s post of June 17, 2009, and
also the post from June 26, 2009 at the second hyperlink (below):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/057c17bfee189e86?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_frm/thread/384adca6fe6388fc?scoring=d&
You'd think we'd learn from history. You'd think that after the
holocaust we'd understand, as people, the evils of genocide. What a
shame there is this gang.
We've been over this before, Measures. And I'm not the only one
that's had to correct you.
>
> > > and denigrating theists
> > > who offer opposing views.
>
> > Theists that say it's okay to commit genocide for god and to commit
> > other war crimes for god *should* be denigrated.
>
> Sure...
>
> >After all, that's exactly the sort of religious terrorists that committed the crimes of
> > 9/11.
>
> There were all types of excuses for 911 ( and many more if you listen
> to the kooks).... I don't believe I recall any of them being known to
> saying that G-d directly told them to kill anyone
They were praying to god just before the plane hit. Yes, it really
was religious terrorism.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Dumb, dense, and dishonest.
Deborah, when you engage in name calling you give the impression that
you lack confidence in the rationality of your argument.
> Anderson conveniently forgets I made
> reference to his one-time acquaintance, Matt Young.
Once you got caught parrotting the negative review written by Robert
Bennett. Of course Robert Bennett is going to give my book, "Farewell
to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and science" a bad review.
http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/1410753840
Robert Bennett is an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jul 14, 10:53 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 2:32 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > > > > Wha happin, your incessant drone of "ad hominem"
> > > > > > > became tiresome even for an infantile creep like you?
>
> > > > > > When you engage in name calling, it gives the impression that you lack
> > > > > > conviction in the rationality of your argument.
>
> > > > > Poor robot couldn't figure out how to answer the question,
>
> > > > The question was based on a false premise.
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > Sure it was. You asked "Wha [sic] happin,
>
> you forgot another sic, you sick puppy.
>
> > your incessant drone of "ad
> > hominem became [sic] became tiresome even for an infantile creep like
> > you?"
>
> Just a reminder to the group. Du's "sic" is intended as a get-backsie
> - yet more evidence that he is a child.
When you engage in name calling you give the impression that you lack
dsharavi
>Interesting. Thanks for that post. I like what I see of this Kaplan,
>although personally I can't say words the meaning of which I either
>don't understand or don't believe. I have often thought that there is
>so much to Judaism that is so wise and wonderful, when is there going
>to come along a rabbi smart enough to get rid of the superstition and
>retain the kernel?
For Matt Young, that seems to have been Kaplan and his "Judaism as a
Civilization". See also Kaplan's "New Zionism". Kaplan was a sort of
neo-Gordonian Zionist who wanted to abandon the limitations of
political Zionism in favor of a "greater Zionism", to promote more
interdependence and interaction between the Jews of Israel and those
in the Diaspora. Give it a shot. It probaby beats Dever <g>.
Deborah
Duwaynea Anderson
To see Matt Young's four-star review of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to
terms with Mormonism and science" click the following hyperlink:
http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/1410753840
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> This quote is more amusing in its implications:
>
> From: Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnderson @gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
> “If god told me to commit genocide, I'd tell god to go fuck
> himself. “http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/651f4682f3b...
Compare my answer to some of these:
With regard to the question: "Do you unconditionally condemn
dsharavi
> > Ah, let's look at the child du wanting some "get-backsies".
On Jul 15, 6:32 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> When you engage in name calling, it gives the impression that you lack
> conviction in the rationality of your argument.
When a boofhead engages in pasting the same boring drivel over and
over again, no matter the subject of the discussion, it gives a
stronger impression that the boofhead has no conviction in the
rationality of his argument -- and the strongest impression that the
boofhead has no argument.
Deborah
dsharavi
wrote:
> Are you, or are you not, saying that Deborah was wrong to cite Robert
> Bennett's negative review, while ignoring that of Matt Young, a
> distinguished Jewish scientist?
Anderson is lying again. Anderson conveniently forgets I made
reference to his one-time acquaintance, Matt Young.
Anderson also "conveniently" forgets the references I posted to to
Matt Young's articles -- for which Anderson thanked me (see
following). This may be due to the fact that Anderson snipped them, in
his attempt to deny them, and the fact that his "acquaintance" Matt
Young is a disciple of Rabbi Moredechai Kaplan, the prominent American
Zionist.
Or maybe Anderson conveniently forgets them them because they
contained too many words for his sad old noodle to absorb.
Another Anderson post revisited:
------------------------------------
>On Jun 25, 3:09 pm, Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
>>One of the scientists to review the book is Jewish. He's an
acquaintance of mine.
.
On Jun 25, 3:42 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>It's a given that some of Anderson's best friends......
>He doesn't know them too well, though.
>Here's what he wrote:
>How to Be Religious without Believing in God —and Why
>Matt Young
.
[large snip by Anderson of Young's appreciation of R Kaplan]
.
>http://www.iras.org/conferences/book2002_nomap.pdf
.
Deborah, thanks for posting the stuff by Matt
Are you aware that he gave my book a positive review?
.
From: Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnderson @gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/bd37ee742da519bf
------------------------------------
.
Excerpts from that review were also previously posted -- possibly one
of the few reviews that weren't from Anderson's relatives or friends.
.
Anderson bobbed up and down several times, calling attention to this
"positive review".
.
“Deborah, did you figure out, yet, that the review by Matt Young was
positive?”
Jun 25 by Duwaynea Anderson
.
“Matt gave my book a very good review (4 stars).”
Jun 25 by Duwaynea Anderson
.
“Why do you downplay Matt Young's positive review as a "blurb?"
He's a highly accomplished Jewish scientists. “
Jun 26 by Duwaynea Anderson
.
“Meanwhile, Deborah, it seems to have completely escaped you that Matt
Young -- a
highly accomplished Jewish scientist -- gave my book high marks.”
Jun 26 by Duwaynea Anderson
.
There were more Anderson bobbings for attention, but I'm not going to
backtrack them all. But note Anderson's puffery above, as well as how,
like most antisemites, he's impressed by "Jewishness".
.
Here's some of that "positive" and "very good review" with "high
marks" from Anderson's good friend:
.
---------------------------------------------
Up from Literalism, October 15, 2005
By Matt Young
“I met Duwayne Anderson many years ago, at a conference on fiber
optics. I was therefore intrigued recently when I heard from him again
and received a copy of his book. “
“I have no interest in the Mormon church, but I read the early
chapters and the "Final Thoughts" with keen interest.”
“I read Mr. Anderson's chapter, "What Is Science?" That chapter
explains in simple, concrete terms how science works.”
“I skipped many pages and came to the "Final Thoughts," which I
interpreted as a plea to abandon the literalist interpretation of the
Mormon scriptures but retain the ethical and spiritual aspects of the
culture.”
http://www.amazon.com/review/RG3T1NODGDNB8
------------------------------------------------
Anderson's once-met acquaintance also writes:
How to Find Meaning in Religion without Believing in God
Matt Young
.
“I used to be a nonpracticing Jew; now I am a sort-of-practicing
Reform Jew. Reading the influential rabbi Mordecai Kaplan convinced me
you didn't have to believe in God to be Jewish (or religious, in a
generalized sense of that word). To Kaplan, a Reconstructionist rabbi,
Judaism is not a religion but rather an "evolving religious
civilization," where the key word is "evolving."
.
“I was brought up in a secular-Jewish household, and I find a lot that
is meaningful in that culture. Obviously, we often have more in common
with people who share our background than with others. One way to
associate with fellow Jews is to read the books, sing the songs, watch
the plays, and generally take part in the sancta of that subculture.
Religious ritual is an inherent part of the culture, but it has for me
no deeper meaning than fireworks on the Fourth of July. I found myself
able to recite "Blessed are you, Lord our God ..." only when I stopped
understanding the words literally. Instead, I transvalue them into a
way of expressing my belonging to a community and taking part in that
community's rituals, as well as my pleasure at being alive and well
adapted to the universe in which I find myself.”
.
“You can of course adopt a culture or religion other than your own.
People who intermarry or immigrate often do so. But your own culture
also has a strong claim on your loyalty, and there may be no
contingency that requires you to give it up. When Chaim Weizmann, the
first President of Israel, was asked why the Jewish homeland had to be
in Palestine rather than, say, Uganda, he responded by asking why you
travel many miles to visit your mother when there are lots of other
old ladies closer at hand. My subculture is the one that helped shape
my values, beliefs, and outlook. It is already close at hand. Why
disown it and adopt another?”
.
http://inside.mines.edu/~mmyoung/FIarticle.htm
.
Very different from Anderson and his boringly repetitious hate-filled
screeds.
Deborah
dsharavi
<DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>wrote:
><snip>
"<Snip>" is one of Anderson's childish methods of avoiding
facts he can't face, and usually signals that he's going
to ignore, distort, or lie about what the previous poster
wrote.
>On Jul 15, 2:14 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>Dumb, dense, and dishonest.
>
>Deborah, when you engage in name calling you give the impression that
>you lack confidence in the rationality of your argument.
When a boofhead like Anderson engages in pasting the same
boring drivel over and over again, it gives the much stronger
impression that he not only has no conviction in his argument,
but that he has no argument.
>
>>Anderson conveniently forgets I made
>>reference to his one-time acquaintance, Matt Young.
>
>Once you got caught parrotting the negative review written by Robert
>Bennett.
"Caught parroting"? Posting a review -- with attribution -- isn't
parroting. Once again, Anderson proves himself the boofhead par
excellence.
>Of course Robert Bennett is going to give my book, "Farewell
>to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and science" a bad review.
Arguably he thought it was a stupid book. Back to the subject, now,
WRT the above: Anderson's snippage means he's going to ignore the
latest refutation of one of his lies. Here's the refutation again.
Incidentally, if this is how Anderson reacts to criticism, he's lucky
he never went to architecture school. He wouldn't have made it past
his first mid-term, without collapsing in a puddle from criticism. In
law school, of course, the criticism would have inspired him to put a
bullet through his brain, such as that may be, after the first month.
Back to the refutation of Anderson's lies:
Of course Anderson is lying again. Anderson conveniently
forgets I made reference to his one-time acquaintance, Matt
Young. Anderson also "conveniently" forgets the references I
posted to to Matt Young's articles -- for which Anderson
thanked me (see following).
This may be due to the fact that Anderson snipped them, in his
attempt to deny them, and the fact that his "acquaintance" Matt
Young is a disciple of Rabbi Moredechai Kaplan, the prominent
American Zionist.
Or maybe Anderson conveniently forgets them them because they
contained too many words for his sad old noodle to absorb.
Another Anderson post revisited:
------------------------------------
>On Jun 25, 3:09 pm, Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
>>One of the scientists to review the book is Jewish. He's an
acquaintance of mine.
.
On Jun 25, 3:42 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>It's a given that some of Anderson's best friends......
>He doesn't know them too well, though.
>Here's what he wrote:
>How to Be Religious without Believing in God —and Why
>Matt Young
.
[large unattributed SNIP by Anderson of Young's appreciation of the
prominent American Zionist, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan]
.
>http://www.iras.org/conferences/book2002_nomap.pdf
.
Deborah, thanks for posting the stuff by Matt
Are you aware that he gave my book a positive review?
.
From: Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnderson @gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/bd37ee742da519bf
------------------------------------
.
Excerpts from that review were also previously posted -- possibly one
of the few reviews that weren't from Anderson's relatives or friends.
.
Anderson bobbed up and down several times, calling attention to this
"positive review".
.
“Deborah, did you figure out, yet, that the review by Matt Young was
positive?”
Jun 25 by Duwaynea Anderson
.
“Matt gave my book a very good review (4 stars).”
Jun 25 by Duwaynea Anderson
.
“Why do you downplay Matt Young's positive review as a "blurb?"
He's a highly accomplished Jewish scientists. “
Jun 26 by Duwaynea Anderson
.
“Meanwhile, Deborah, it seems to have completely escaped you that Matt
Young -- a highly accomplished Jewish scientist -- gave my book high
marks.”
Jun 26 by Duwaynea Anderson
.
There were more Anderson bobbings for attention, but I'm not going to
backtrack them all. But note Anderson's puffery above, as well as how,
like most antisemites, he's impressed by "Jewishness".
.
Here's some of that "positive" and "very good review" with "high
marks" from Anderson's good friend:
.
---------------------------------------------
Up from Literalism, October 15, 2005
By Matt Young
“I met Duwayne Anderson many years ago, at a conference on fiber
optics. I was therefore intrigued recently when I heard from him again
and received a copy of his book. “
“I have no interest in the Mormon church, but I read the early
chapters and the "Final Thoughts" with keen interest.”
“I read Mr. Anderson's chapter, "What Is Science?" That chapter
explains in simple, concrete terms how science works.”
“I skipped many pages and came to the "Final Thoughts," which I
interpreted as a plea to abandon the literalist interpretation of the
Mormon scriptures but retain the ethical and spiritual aspects of the
culture.”
http://www.amazon.com/review/RG3T1NODGDNB8
------------------------------------------------
Anderson's once-met acquaintance also writes:
How to Find Meaning in Religion without Believing in God
Matt Young
.
“I used to be a nonpracticing Jew; now I am a sort-of-practicing
Reform Jew. Reading the influential rabbi Mordecai Kaplan convinced me
you didn't have to believe in God to be Jewish (or religious, in a
generalized sense of that word). To Kaplan, a Reconstructionist rabbi,
Judaism is not a religion but rather an "evolving religious
civilization," where the key word is "evolving."
.
“I was brought up in a secular-Jewish household, and I find a lot that
is meaningful in that culture. Obviously, we often have more in common
with people who share our background than with others. One way to
associate with fellow Jews is to read the books, sing the songs, watch
the plays, and generally take part in the sancta of that subculture.
Religious ritual is an inherent part of the culture, but it has for me
no deeper meaning than fireworks on the Fourth of July. I found myself
able to recite "Blessed are you, Lord our God ..." only when I stopped
understanding the words literally. Instead, I transvalue them into a
way of expressing my belonging to a community and taking part in that
community's rituals, as well as my pleasure at being alive and well
adapted to the universe in which I find myself.”
.
“You can of course adopt a culture or religion other than your own.
People who intermarry or immigrate often do so. But your own culture
also has a strong claim on your loyalty, and there may be no
contingency that requires you to give it up. When Chaim Weizmann, the
first President of Israel, was asked why the Jewish homeland had to be
in Palestine rather than, say, Uganda, he responded by asking why you
travel many miles to visit your mother when there are lots of other
old ladies closer at hand. My subculture is the one that helped shape
my values, beliefs, and outlook. It is already close at hand. Why
disown it and adopt another?”
dsharavi
>>>>>>>>>You "forgot" to tell the readership all about "plagerize".
>>>>>>>>>And you
>>>>>>>>>forgot this:
>>>>>>>>>>>Then you should stop defending Deborah's
>>>>>>>>>>>exclusive use of Mormon
>>>>>>>>>>>apologists in criticizing my book.
>>>>>>>>>>CITE WHERE I DEFENDED THIS USE
>
>>>On Jul 15, 5:14 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>>Cite where I made "exclusive use of Mormon apologists" who <gasp!>
>>>>dared! to! CRITICIZE! Duh's drek!
>
>>>>This is merely another of Anderson's lies. I distinctly recall
>>>>mentioning that Duh gave himself a five-star review. So did
>>>>one of his
>>>>sons, and a few friends and relatives.
>
>>>>>>>LOL! Of course, you can't cite because, yet again, you lied.
>
>>>>Cela va sans dire.
>
>>>>>>>I think
>>>>>>>you need to pray to the god you don't believe in to ask his
>>>>>>>forgiveness.
>>>>>>>>>OR BE PROVEN YET AGAIN A LIAR. You just
>>>>>>>>>>can't go very long without lying, can you, du?
>>>>>>>>>My, my, my, my, my, how could you be sooooo forgetful??
>
>http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/14107...
Excerpts from that review were posted above -- and, contrary to
Anderson's lies, elsewhere, as follows:
Up from Literalism, October 15, 2005
By Matt Young
"I met Duwayne Anderson many years ago, at a conference on fiber
optics. I was therefore intrigued recently when I heard from him again
and received a copy of his book. "
"I have no interest in the Mormon church, but I read the early
chapters and the "Final Thoughts" with keen interest.”
"I read Mr. Anderson's chapter, "What Is Science?" That chapter
explains in simple, concrete terms how science works."
"I skipped many pages"
http://www.amazon.com/review/RG3T1NODGDNB8
Of course, Anderson didn't get the five-star review that Anderson and
his son gave Anderson's book, lol.
Deborah
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 9:32 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 10:57 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 7:01 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > Yes, all from people who were not bright enough to see what bullshit
> > > > > > mormonism is without paying money for some book written by a loser.
>
> > > > > You need to read the reviews of the book before you start reviewing
> > > > > the reviewers. One (Matt Young) is a highly respected scientist, and
> > > > > a Jew.
>
> > > > >http://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Eden-Coming-Mormonism-Science/dp/14107...
>
> > > > I've read many of them.
>
> > > Then you should have known better than to lie by saying the positive
> > > review were "all from people who were not bright enough to see what
> > > bullshit mormonism [sic] is."
>
> > Ah, let's look at the child du wanting some "get-backsies".
>
> When you engage in name calling, it gives the impression that you lack
> conviction in the rationality of your argument.
Poor, poor du. I have reduced him to a near-catatonic, babbling blob.
Looks like my job is just about done.
dsharavi
> <snip>
"<Snip>" is one of Anderson's childish methods of avoiding
facts he can't face, and usually signals that he's going
to ignore, distort, or lie about what the previous poster
wrote.
> On Jul 15, 2:32 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > This quote is more amusing in its implications:
>
> > From: Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnderson @gmail.com>
> > Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
> > “If god told me to commit genocide, I'd tell god to go fuck
> > himself. “
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/651f4682f3b...
>
> Compare my answer to some of these:
> With regard to the question: "Do you unconditionally condemn
....yyyaaaawwnnnnn......
"Some of these" answers -- all of them, in fact -- are nothing more
than Anderson quoting himself. From Anderson's self-quotes, these NGs
have suffered quite enough.
But what can you expect of someone who gives himself a five-star
review on Amazon.com, and gets his kid to give him the same? No wonder
Anderson's such a boring writer.
Deborah
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 15, 5:17 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 10:53 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 2:32 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > > > Wha happin, your incessant drone of "ad hominem"
> > > > > > > > became tiresome even for an infantile creep like you?
>
> > > > > > > When you engage in name calling, it gives the impression that you lack
> > > > > > > conviction in the rationality of your argument.
>
> > > > > > Poor robot couldn't figure out how to answer the question,
>
> > > > > The question was based on a false premise.
>
> > > > Nope.
>
> > > Sure it was. You asked "Wha [sic] happin,
>
> > you forgot another sic, you sick puppy.
>
> > > your incessant drone of "ad
> > > hominem became [sic] became tiresome even for an infantile creep like
> > > you?"
>
> > Just a reminder to the group. Du's "sic" is intended as a get-backsie
> > - yet more evidence that he is a child.
>
> When you engage in name calling you give the impression that you lack
> confidence in the rationality of your argument.
Everyone here will accept your admission of defeat, including me.
>
> > He wants to "get me" because I
> > embarrassed him by revealing some of his spelling and grammatical
> > flaws. Now he will "sic" typos, etc. to seek revenge. Poor du.
>
> > > See the false premise?
>
> > Du, your "condition" is causing hallucinations. See a shrink. Now,
> > please do tell the group, why did you feel compelled to snip this:
>
> > Listen, asshole, do you deny that after every time anyone called you
> > anything unflattering, up until recently, you cited ad hominem? YES OR
> > NO?
You obviously don't have the courage to answer. At least you didn't
try your snippy snippy this time.
Count 1
"Duwaynea Anderson" <Duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ac92cbe-8baf-4d36...@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 14, 8:56 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5e363c0b-e332-4b93...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 14, 1:24 pm, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:936d3040-ba97-49fa...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 14, 9:22 am, "Count 1" <omnipitus2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > LOL.....Who is this guy? Is he someone new?
> > > ***
>
> > > He's an ex-mormon, now fascist-atheist. He's been demanding conformity
> > > to
> > > his opinions
>
> > Hardly. I've been asking people if they unconditionally condemn
> > genocide and killing children that have been taken as prisoners of
> > war. You don't need to agree with me, if you don't like.
> > ****
>
> > You've been demanding conformity to your viewpoint
>
> Hardly. I've been asking people if they unconditionally condemn
> genocide and killing children that have been taken as prisoners of
> war. You don't need to agree with me, if you don't like.
> ***
>
> I completely disagree with you. You have been up to much more than that.
It's a matter of record.
***
I completely agree. The record supports my disagreement with you.
***
What's really interesting, though, is that the discussion has gone on
for so long, motivated by people like you that get so worked up over
simple little questions like these:
1) Do you unconditionally condemn genocide?
2) Do you unconditionally condemn killing children that have been
taken as prisoners of war?
Any moral/ethical person would condemn those things.
Why won't you?
****
There are a few things I would 'unconditionally condemn'. I condemn those
two as a basic principle, but am broad minded enough to understand there
could arise scenarios that would make both justified. I have given those
scenarios to you in the past, and you ran from a response. Proabably because
they don't fit in with your cut and paste-bot MO.
A further example follows.
Count 1
Looks like my job is just about done.
He's accomplished about as much here as his book did - nothing.
drahcir
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 9:48 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 10:50 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 2:06 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > So, you really don't understand the concept of appropriating a person
> > > > > as a "scientific authority?"
>
> > > > Hehe, du, let's just let readers decide if "appropriating someone as a
> > > > scientific authority" means casting someone as a scientific authority,
>
> > > That's what's called a strawman argument. I never said the two
> > > statements are the same.
>
> > Of course you didn't.
>
> Thanks for confirming your strawman argument.
Dream on, asshole. Hey, folks, I've accomplished the nearly impossible
- reduced Du to near-speechlessness, and at the same time taught him
the appropriate use of the word "appropriate".
DoD
wrote:
> 4) Deborah Sharavi: Refuses to answer the question. Dodges or
> ignores it every time. Published cannibalistic recipe for killing/
> eating Palestinians:
Ok.... I learned enough about you to now know you are a child-like
asswipe... Grow up... I am going to assume at this point you will add
me to your pathetic list.
last_per...@yahoo.com
> > If god told me to commit genocide or if I saw the easter bunny, then I'd
> > check myself into a mental institution.
>
> Do you suffer from post nasal drip?
Doodoo, is it true that you were caught in your car in a public
place fornicating with an orange?
DoD
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 10:13 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well, that's you opinion. I happen to think it's a perfectly good
> > > example.
>
> > No it isn't.
>
> That's your opinion.
Against your opinion, and I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that
yours is
worthless.
> > If you asked me what I would do if the E.B. jumped out
> > from behind a bush...My first inclination
> > would be to say, was this some redneck having a joke, spray painting
> > E.B. on a rabbits back?
>
> So you would simply refuse to engage the hypothetical question.
> That's fine.
I would engage it... I would just get my synapses to work before I
answered.
> Now you are confused about how *you* would answer, and reasonable
> logical inferences from someone else's answer.
>
> I'm not telling you how to deal with hypothetical questions. Deal
> with them anyway you want.
>
> But when someone claims that the simple act of answering a
> hypothetical question implies acceptance of all the hypothetical
> elements in the question, they are just being stupid.-
No... that means you weren't thinking...If I was a vegan and someone
asked me if I could accept chocolate covered deer jerky.... I wouldn't
hesitate to say no...
You said you would talk to something that you don't believe is there..
Count 1
"DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:03e451b2-8578-4fd4...@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
***
Since you refused to conform to his demands obviously you support genocide,
execution of children taken as prisoners of war, and cannibalism.
Me too. Add to that list "MILFs", "mind bending chemicals", and "Rock and
Roll".
Of course our sarcasm challenged friend may not get the joke.
Duwaynea Anderson
> > On Jul 14, 9:32 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ah, let's look at the child du wanting some "get-backsies".
>
> On Jul 15, 6:32 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > When you engage in name calling, it gives the impression that you lack
> > conviction in the rationality of your argument.
>
> When a boofhead
Name calling gives the impression that you lack conviction in the
rationality of your argument.
> engages in pasting the same boring drivel over and
> over again,
There is no "drivel" as "booring" as unimaginative name calling.
> no matter the subject of the discussion, it gives a
> stronger impression that the boofhead has no conviction in the
> rationality of his argument -- and the strongest impression that the
> boofhead has no argument.
Deborah, you've quoted Robert Bennett at length with his negative
review of my book, "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism
and science"
But you've yet to explain why a Robert Bennett, a paid apologist for
the LDS Church, should have any credibility in the matter. Especially
given his apologetic writings in defense of the most absurd LDS
doctrines.
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=129
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=131
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/enos/1/21#21
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/18/25#25
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=126
>
> Deborah
>
>
>
> > > you thought when I said "all", it meant that I had read EVERY SINGLE
> > > REVIEW, all 26, and was claiming that EVERY FAVORABLE ONE was from
> > > people not bright enough to see what bullshit mormonism is. Is that
> > > what you want to try to foist onto the group, du? SAY IT CLEARLY. If
> > > that is the case, I am dreadfully sorry that you were misled. Please
> > > accept my apology - I should have known a confused jumble of neurons
> > > masquerading as a brain, as exists between your ears, would tumble
> > > into that abyss. A thousand pardons. The truth is, I spent perhaps 2.5
> > > minutes with the reivews and I DID NOT READ ONE FAVORABLE REVIEW THAT
> > > WAS NOT AS I DESCRIBED. (I didn't read yours or your son's.) When I
> > > said "all", I mistakenly assumed ALL readers would understand that
> > > only a complete idiot would spend the time necessary to read all of
> > > the reviews, and would understand I meant "all that I had read". I
> > > completely forgot about imbeciles like you, and for that I am deeply
> > > sorry.
>
> > > You are one sick puppy, du.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jul 15, 6:33 am, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Are you, or are you not, saying that Deborah was wrong to cite Robert
> > Bennett's negative review, while ignoring that of Matt Young, a
> > distinguished Jewish scientist?
>
> Anderson is lying again. Anderson conveniently forgets I made
> reference to his one-time acquaintance, Matt Young.
Only after you were caught promoting Robert Bennett's negative review.
But why wouldn't Bennett post a negative reiview? Robert Bennett, an
apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or
Mormon) was a prolific writer for the LDS Church. Among his various
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=129
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=131
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/enos/1/21#21
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/18/25#25
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=126
> Anderson also "conveniently" forgets the references I posted to to
> Matt Young's articles -- for which Anderson thanked me (see
> following).
Deborah still thinks that Matt's personal religion is the issue, and
not his scientific credentials and his positive review of my book.
> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:00:12 -0700 (PDT)http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/bd37ee742da519bf
> .http://inside.mines.edu/~mmyoung/FIarticle.htm