Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Temp. Admin.
Sunbeam
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:50 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Temp. Admin. »

Doctor Scratch wrote:suppose that Dr. Peterson was horribly racist towards a black person. Suppose, for example, he posted an image of a lynching as a "joke," and got called out on it, and was accused of being a racist. . .
I'm going to have to respectfully submit that speculation that an individual is "horribly racist" is something that shouldn't be posted willy-nilly, if at all, especially in today's charged political climate. (Shulem, please take note.) Now, nobody is asking me to post this or otherwise telling me to do so or else I'll lose privileges--this post is entirely my own idea--but I sincerely believe, in my heart of hearts, that DCP is not racist--at all. I'm convinced that the posting of the photograph in question was a politically incorrect blunder that simply wasn't thought through very well. Somewhat more specifically, the nuances of the inadvisability of equating another's full-on tragedies to one's own mere inconveniences may not be instinctive but rather must be learned.

May we all refrain from using the word "racist" so freely?
And if we take the Mopologists at face value that atheism and ex-Mormonism are "religions," then it only gets worse.
Now THAT is an incredibly good point. The next time one of them calls gemli's non-belief a "religion," then one of us ought to chide him for attacking gemli's religion! I for one will be waiting.

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22018
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by moksha »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:28 pm
I know how fond Dr. Peterson is of this type of moralistic genuflection--it's a staple of Sic et Non. So maybe he'll enlighten us about the principle of forgiveness, and why--even if someone is a habitual offender--we ought to extend the gift of forgiveness to them.
I know the answer to that immediately: It is because the quality of mercy is not strained.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11395
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Shulem »

Temp. Admin. wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 10:51 pm
(Shulem, please take note.)
Fair enough. But, I sure would love to read and critique a paper by DCP about Anubis in Facsimile No. 3 and how it relates to the printing plate. The apologists do NOTHING to defend Anubis or the true character of the black man and I find that to be not only disturbing, but sad -- and dishonest.

I've said all along that this single issue is the worst nightmare for apologists concerning the Book of Abraham because it proves that Smith intentionally made changes to suit his own purposes in fabricating his story.

DCP won't touch Anubis with a 10 foot pole. My point is that the apologist's interpretation of Facsimile No. 3 as supported by Smith is in fact an attack on another religion -- the ancient Egyptian religion. The fact that Gee doesn't come to Anubis's rescue is utterly shameful and proves he'd rather defend Smith's lies than stand by history in the appropriate context.
It's all very sad and frustrating. The apologetic website
Pearl of Great Price Central
is shameful and just goes to show how twisted Mormon apologists are willing to be. How can they sleep at night? Selling their souls . . . .

:sad:

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9679
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Gadianton »

Kiwi57 wrote:Rubbish.

1. As you know, "louse" is a deliberate insult.
Was calling Gina Colvin "legion" an insult Kiwi57? Because Louis Midgley upvoted that insult against Gina. You and Dan don't seem to agree.

Does Dan have the courage to publicly condemn Louis Midgley's behavior? Or does he think it's good enough to ask him to tone it down behind the scenes?

Dan, don't you think at the very least, if you lack the courage to publicly condemn Louis Midgley's behavior in regard to Dr. Colvin, that you could privately request him to apologize to her?
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9679
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Gadianton »

Kiwi57 and Dan cover for Louis as he tells the following lie:
Dr. Shades seems to have gone back to see how I voted on the total rubbish his own crew had posted on Gina Colvin's blog, since his own voting clearly supporting bald faced lies, bizarre fabrications, nasty name-calling, and blatant falsehoods, and hence actually believing that that rubbish is true. In those remarks there were less than sly remarks aimed at my age, as if that is a debilitating personal fault, which has done in his own comment.
here is an example of an upvoted comment from Midgley -- nothing to do with people on this board.
I've always thought that, for a Mormon, converting to Judiasm makes much more sense than trying to make your way through the jungle of Modern Christianity. Your list rivals Greta Thurmberg. Postmodernism is not working. Your courage seems like artifice. Move on. You don't have what it takes to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. I get it. Your name is Legion. There's a million of you.
Here is an example of a downvoted comment from midgley -- nothing to do with people of this board.
No matter what a person calls themselves, the important thing is to know the Gospel of Grace. It is that Gospel that is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9679
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Gadianton »

Louis Midgley wrote:And I upvoted them precisely because they got it right
Huck555 upvoted by Louis Midgley wrote:I've always thought that, for a Mormon, converting to Judiasm makes much more sense than trying to make your way through the jungle of Modern Christianity. Your list rivals Greta Thurmberg. Postmodernism is not working. Your courage seems like artifice. Move on. You don't have what it takes to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. I get it. Your name is Legion. There's a million of you.
Wow. It looks like Kiwi57 and Dan Peterson agree.

Pretty Lousy if you ask me.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Dr Moore »

Kiwi sure does a lot of mind reading.

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9679
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Gadianton »

LM: "Hatred is a very poor counselor."

Peterson: "Amen."

Just remember, Dan, that on Gina's blog, some nice person said this to Gina:

"No matter what a person calls themselves, the important thing is to know the Gospel of Grace. It is that Gospel that is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes."

While that great guy you know who has traveled the world with you downvoted the comment. Do you think that was nice? But it gets worse:

Gina herself said "Amen" to that nice comment on grace, and Mr. Nice guy, your buddy Lou, downvoted Gina's amen!!! And this was on the very thread in which Lou announced his plans to "pay a visit" to Gina?

Don't you think that was both rude and unwise of your favorite guy in the world?
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Paloma
Teacher
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:26 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Paloma »

I notice that Dr. Peterson is vehemently insisting that he does not/has not attacked the beliefs of non-LDS believers. While this is anecdotal, I clearly remember several years ago when DCP wrote a stinging critique of the Trinity. (If I recall correctly, it was Ms Jack who drew attention to it.) Peterson was definitely mocking the non-LDS Christian view of the Trinity, presenting it as absolutely absurd on the face of it. I expect that he remembers how he's perceived and described the Trinity.

Perhaps he doesn't see this as an attack, but as a personal opinion ... or maybe just that the Trinity is a ridiculous idea worthy of being bitingly and wittingly mocked.

For some non-LDS Christians, the Trinity is about as sacred a concept as is conceivable. If I were to try and come up with something equivalent to the Temple, I might choose the Trinity (though non-LDS Christians, as with LDS believers, would probably point to the Atonement as being of paramount importance to their faith).

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7801
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Well,just look what Dr. Midgley offered up earlier today:
Louis Midgley wrote:I should also have called attention to the useful service that Professor Peterson provides by occasionally calling attention to the useful and very amusing responses to Jonathan Neville's most recent antics. The one who does this must enjoy what some of us who once felt the need see that there are easily available responses to other similar and sometimes related rubbish--I have in mind the miserable mercenary Rodney Meldrum stuff.
Meaning, of course, that DCP has yet again provided a set of links to "Neville Neville Land," which is entirely devoted to attacking Jonathan Neville. Now, I can see how they might object to me characterizing this as an "attack on others' religious beliefs," but at the end of the day, what else could it be? I imagine that Dr. Peterson will say that he's justified in linking to this blog because Neville "attacked" him. Do unto others, I guess? But at the end of the day, their dispute *is* religious in nature: they are fighting because they disagree over the location of the Book of Mormon. They wouldn't be calling each other names, setting up attack blogs, or trolling each other's blogs if it wasn't for that one, basic fact.

Honestly, I'm sort of amazed the DCP has gotten his nose so out of joint over this. The idea that he attacks others' religious beliefs is such a plain and obvious fact that it scarcely needs to be said. Does he never re-read his own writings? It's true that he doesn't do this all the time, and it's also true that he's generally respectful towards religion, and religious people. But that was not the point I was making. Everything I said can be true, and someone can *still* sometimes trash other people's beliefs. So, claiming that this is "flatly untrue" just isn't going to cut it. *Sometimes* it is really and totally true. Now, maybe somebody wants to make an arguing about "frequency" or "duration" or "severity" or whatever else--litigate this however you want. Maybe the idea is that, because this only happens, e.g., once per year on average, that it "doesn't count." If you want to explain it that way, go right ahead: I don't care.

Interestingly, the move that was made was to *defend* the justifiability of denigrating, looking down upon, or judging others' beliefs:
Daniel Peterson wrote:You are also -- by definition -- a racist because you are a believing Latter-day Saint. Believing the Book of Mormon to be historically authentic, you strip Native Americans and the Maori and other Polynesians of their native origin stories and their own pre-Restoration understanding of themselves.

Curiously, I've never seen anybody who makes that argument denounce contemporary science and anthropology as racist.

But just ask a modern geneticist or anthropologist how much credence she gives to the Navajo account of First Man, First Woman, Coyote, their travels through the multi-colored worlds, their emergence into this one, their creation of the first Hogan, the birth of Changing Woman, and her twins, Monster Slayer and Born for Water. Does she endorse the claim that the Hopi used to live beneath the Earth prior to their emergence in the Grand Canyon? That Maasaw, this Fourth World's divine Caretaker and Creator, granted them permission to stay in it if they promised to be good stewards of it?

White supremacist science, you might say, is at war with indigenous self-understandings. But that's apparently okay, perhaps because it's mostly done by non-Latter-day Saints.
I guess the idea here is that if academics do this, it must be okay?

Wow. And to think that Dr. LOD wrote a post *praising* him for doing a blog entry on Native American perspectives on Juneteenth! So, basically, Dr. Peterson has conjured up this pretend social-sciences academic who studies Native Americans and secretly looks down "her" (notice the pronoun! That was deliberate, of course! He would love it if you were incensed over this!) nose at them, and who is privately dismissive of their religious ideas. Well, even assuming that such a person actually exists, I doubt this phantom anthropologist would post stuff on the Internet slamming them. Then again: weirder things have happened. I mean, maybe "she" would launch a racist blog under the pseudonym "Tinkerbell" in which she ridicules the Indians' belief systems. Maybe "she" would get into email arguments with Hopi or Navajo, and would take cheap shots re: "this Fourth World's divine Caretaker and Creator," and they would get posted on her buddy's crappy website: and they'd all high-five each other over this.

So it goes. Oh, and did you know that Dr. Shades--after all he did!--has now been temporarily banned from commenting? (I.e., censored?)
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9679
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Gadianton »

He doesn't get that speaking of the beliefs with the tone that they are childish is different than scientists simply ignoring them. If somebody said, "But just ask a modern geneticist or anthropologist how much credence she gives to kolob, secret handshakes, and golden bibles..." then they'd get banned from Sic et Non and Kiwi57 would go into cardiac arrest.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9679
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Gadianton »

So it goes. Oh, and did you know that Dr. Shades--after all he did!--has now been temporarily banned from commenting? (I.e., censored?)
It was clearly for this zinger, that hit dead on and left Mr. M paralyzed.

When DCP asked Shades what Mr. M's age had to do with anything, Shades responded:
About as much as my former job and real last name have to do with anything. Perhaps Dr. Midgley can solve the mystery for us.
LOL! I'm surprised he only got a couple days.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6342
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Philo Sofee »

Lou and Dan and Kiwi are living proof in favor of Shades' distinction between chapel and internet Mormons. Chapel Mormons simply do not behave nor speak nor act the way the 3 stooges do on Sic et Non. Shades scores again!
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7801
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Take a look at this:
Glen Danielson wrote:Wondering why any Saint might appreciate anyone’s showcasing of the inane doctrine of ‘the trinity.’ It is, of course, Lucifer’s thought rot. Just wondering then. :)
It needs to be noted that this sort of thing is being allowed to stand, while Moksha and Dr. Shades have both been temporarily banned! And look at Midgley's reply--it just rolls right off of him, like water off a duck's back:
Midgley wrote:Olson does not showcase anything but shows how there is not one idea of a Trinity, but a considerable range of really quite different explanations and hence quarrels.
Glen Danielson wrote:For me, I have limitations of time to read and explore lore. I would rather avoid blather. I spend dollar on scholar if there’s worth and not dearth. In my view from the pew, Olson is revulsion.
I choose a scholar’s work because I respect his mind, and that regard is based on his output—his *fruits*. When I see inane word-waste as I have read from Roger Olson, he becomes a waste of my scarce reading time. I would rather read Robert Alter, S. Kent Brown, for example.
This is such a basic dimension of Mopologetics that, again, you have to wonder why Prof. P. was so bent out of shape.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1191
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Physics Guy »

But Midgley makes a sound point. "The Trinity" is a famously unclear concept—indeed a range of ideas claiming the same name.

It shouldn't be surprising that the inane old doctrine of the Trinity is actually the most appealing part of Christianity to a 21st-century theoretical physicist. God is a vector, you say? Tell me more. So I'm not impressed at all with Mormon sneers against the Trinity. They sound too much like the kind of sneers that people used to make against relativity, that it was too durn compulcated for anyone t' take serious. Yeah, you know, how likely is it that ultimate reality is going to be easy to grasp for a bunch of jumped-up monkeys using lumps of meat to think?

Midgley's on a bit of a roll right now, at least for me.

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9679
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Gadianton »

Unless a person grew up in a monastery, the Trinity doesn't have a whole lot of rational appeal. Then again, unless a person grew up in Manti Utah like Midgley and Danielson, the 'fruits' of Mormon scholars isn't much to slow down for either. I think what's at issue is less about whether or not Midgley can come up with a good objection to the Trinity, who can't? It's whether or not he's showing respect to another religion. Well, why does that matter? According to Kiwi57, and the apologists generally, one is only allowed to assert their 'positive' religious beliefs. This is their strategy for protecting themselves against the counter-cult ministries. And so the apologists are always making a big deal about how they just humbly tend to their fields and contemplate Jesus when lo, the terrible anti-Mormons come from nowhere and fall upon them. Now they must defend themselves, and so all the nastiness is justified because it's self-defense. You know like Rambo or the Punisher isn't allowed to cut a person 107 times until death, unless the other person draws first blood.

It would be good news for Mormons if this were how the world should work, because if they have a 100,000 sales people out selling their positive beliefs, and nobody is morally allowed to criticize them, then I guess they'd win eventually.

I think DCP and Midgley are a little out of sync. DCP may have forgotten about his old wars with EVs. His personal battles started out with EVs, but over time shifted to secularism and atheism, and for the most part now sees himself as aligned with people of faith. I don't think Midgley got the memo that he's supposed to make that shift. I mean, yeah, he goes with whatever DCP says; he's mad at whatever DCP is mad about on post-by-post basis, but without really paying attention to game plan is overall.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7801
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I wonder if Midgley is trying to play all this off in the manner of, "Oh, gee! I was just kidding! Can't you idiots take a joke?" Take a look:
Midgley wrote:Well, if you had a powerful secular backer much needed to defend against the Austrians and the French, even the leaders of the Evangelical/Lutheran version of the Protestant Reformation would make an exception and allow a bit of polygamy to gratify a "rutting" Prince.
Midgley wrote:Those naughty Anabaptists rejected infant baptism, and hence required rebaptism for all communicants, which explains their name. Everyone--that is, both Lutheran, aka Evangelicals, and Roman Catholics, thought that this was taking change too far, so the Anabaptists were caught in the middle of factions busy making war on each other.
And Dean Robbers, I think this is spot on:
Dr. Robbers wrote:I think DCP and Midgley are a little out of sync. DCP may have forgotten about his old wars with EVs. His personal battles started out with EVs, but over time shifted to secularism and atheism, and for the most part now sees himself as aligned with people of faith. I don't think Midgley got the memo that he's supposed to make that shift. I mean, yeah, he goes with whatever DCP says; he's mad at whatever DCP is mad about on post-by-post basis, but without really paying attention to game plan is overall.
Exactly. That, to me, is why this moment is historically significant in Mopologetics. I mean, it is a real blast from the past to read that Third Hour link that Everybody Wang Chung posted, or for you to bring up that ZLMB thread. Yeah: that's what Mopologetics used to be--non-stop attacks on other religious folks, especially EVs. Remember Midgley's "Old Cash Nexus"? Now, though, we've got this meltdown of epic proportions over on "Sic et Non" over the idea that one of the Mopologists might *still* be doing what they used to do all the time! Have they forgotten those halcyon days or something?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 21158
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

I'll tuck this one on this thread since Lyin' Lou Midgley and Dowsing Dan Peterson agreed with the following posters assessment of Mr. Peterson's grievance blog entry:

"TimErnst

Wow, I wasn't aware of all that you, Dr. Peterson, had done. I knew about a small portion, but what a great life you have spent. You have developed opportunities that the rest of us can only dream about. It's no wonder that those with small minds attack you, they have no other leg to stand on. They are truly limited to talking about you, as opposed to talking about great ideas (or heaven-forbid, ever talking about their own dearth of accomplishment.)

People tend to only be able to rise to the stature of that level of contempt for which they hold others of great esteem. It is a sad limiting factor, which even now, stunts their growth. Those who read this blog (and especially the comments by those stunted participants therein) observe this limiting factor manifest over-and-over again on a daily basis.

"DanielPeterson Mod > TimErnst

You're very kind."

"Louis Midgley > DanielPeterson

...and also correct."

Apparently, Mr. Ernst missed a great deal of what's been posted on this board and other locations where virtually every facet of Mormonism, Christianity, and other topics have been discussed, dissected, sourced, re-sourced, re-dissected, so on and so forth. But that's not what's really at issue here is it? It's Mr. Ernst's blind spot when it comes to the aggressive, passive-aggressive, non-answering, deflecting, omitting, misdirecting, and outright fabricating 'scholarship' Mr. Peterson and his cabal of cantankerous curmudgeons have engaged in over the course of their sorry and soon-to-be-forgotten careers.

But, hey. They travelled quite a bit, and have eaten some interesting dishes over the course of their lives. So that makes them what exactly? Most of the regular posters here have degrees to include masters and doctorates. I'd wager half the posters here have travelled extensively not only for their professional lives, but for leisure. We've all eaten, I'm sure, an incredibly diverse range of foods from all over the world, to include when in country. I've personally attended operas both here and overseas, World Cup matches (overseas), a Super Bowl, plays, concerts, a variety of professional and collegiate sporting matches, studio audience tv shows, been on the radio, been to war, learned multiple languages, fired all sorts of weapons, sky and scuba dived, took flight lessons, hiked large distances here and in Asia, so and so forth (too numerous to bother listing). I'm fairly certain any number of posters here could match or surpass all the wonderful, challenging, interesting, and indulgent things I've done during the course of my life.

Ok. So now that we've laid out how we, too, are bon vivants and intellectuals what we're left with is - what have they done with their lives and why should anyone, much less the denizens of this virtual trailer park, respect their work and them as people?

- Doc

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9679
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Gadianton »

Tim shouldn't be so hard on himself, "developed opportunities the rest of us can only dream about". At any time Tim also could pull up Dr. Colvin's blog and down-vote her friends who encouraged her, or find a gathering of folks who are grieving and drive circles around them and berate them with his windows down.

Psychologically, Sic et Non is a continuation of church. The Proprietor wisely never links to this site nor allows it to be linked to or named, and while it's easy enough to find, the crowd over there has no interest. I don't recall ever seeing a comment that one of them has viewed the referenced content for themselves. How do they know they aren't being lied to? The same way they know Joseph Smith and their present leaders don't lie to them.

If I ever create a sock puppet and infiltrate Sic et Non, which will be later rather than sooner should I choose to do so; I wouldn't speak to any of the Three Musketeers. I would carefully challenge the junior tier. There are some nitwits over there but there are also a few that must be pretty bright and I can't fathom how they swallow the terrible reasoning of the Seniors. I think as a group, there is a tendency toward depression and a lack of self-esteem, and they seek a pat on the head from the Proprietor. But I still think that if pressed, they would be able to see through some of the shoddy reasoning, but they never have it placed directly in front of them with pressure to answer.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22018
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by moksha »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 11:37 am
I've personally attended operas both here and overseas, World Cup matches (overseas), a Super Bowl, plays, concerts, a variety of professional and collegiate sporting matches, studio audience tv shows, been on the radio, been to war, learned multiple languages, fired all sorts of weapons, sky and scuba dived, took flight lessons, hiked large distances here and in Asia, so and so forth (too numerous to bother listing).
Dr. Cam, you've lived a life the rest of us can only dream about. Thanks for being there protecting us from small minds that would seek to steal our bodily fluids and enslave us in some theology that does not allow coffee-flavored ice cream.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6342
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: Why Does Louis Midgley Attack Others' Religious Beliefs?

Post by Philo Sofee »

Moksha
enslave us in some theology that does not allow coffee-flavored ice cream.
(Sputtering).....but........just coffee flavored cannot be the same as actual coffee can it?! What about coffee flavored ice cream?! NO ONE should be allowed to disallow this! :lol:
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

Post Reply