Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)

[WitchSabrina]

(17-01-2014 11:23 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I'm getting sick of having to waste all my time trying to help you all graduate from your high school atheism.

LOL
Then don't do it. Life's easy, pumpkin.
No one is forcing you to put up with us at all. Not even one tiny moment is Anyone forcing you to be here.

TaaaaDaaaa

And most of us aren't HighSchool as much as we revel is making fun of you using whatever means we deem right at the time - childish or otherwise. Personally, I enjoy posting funny pictures as blatant regard to what you attempt (and fail miserably) to spout here. You seem to MISS the POINT that childish replies is a reflection on YOU....... not us.
LMAO But I'm not really surprised that you don't get that.

Your failure here is epic. As is your judgment, character and lack of intelligent, honest discourse.

Delusional. Now there's a word which befits you perfectly. Not delusional for your beliefs. Delusional in how you see yourself and your interaction here.

But do............ by all means......... Go on thinking yourself GOD in an atheists forum. We can enjoy you failing more.

[Cathym112]

(17-01-2014 11:01 AM)maklelan Wrote:  

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Then she's an idiot, and should not be doing that, and I won't ever abide willful ignorance.

Way to assert the dominance of your worldview and intelligence in a constructive and helpful way.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Again, she should stop doing that.

And you should stop doing a ton of things, too, but you like doing them and you don't really care, so you'll keep doing them.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  This is incorrect to say. I bent over backwards for her to try to help her understand.

Right, you bent over backwards to copy and paste stuff you could interpret for her and then shotgun at her. Then when you saw she wasn't really understanding the significance of these texts or the jargon she was using in her second language, you helpfully said, "Holyshit you really are fucking crazy!" Would that all atheists could be as accommodating and noble as you.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  That's what this entire thread has been about. The whole thing has been about trying to help her understand.

Patronize other people if you think they don't know better. Don't patronize me.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Don't you say I didn't try to help her understand. That is complete and utter bullshit, and you have to know it. I doubt it's the understanding you would have wanted me to help her with, but this is an Atheist forum, not a Mormon one, so why would I help her on her journey into delusionment?

Because your belligerence and anger are creating more lifelong ideological opponents and really only serve as emotional masturbation for you.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  If she really is this "delicate little newbie LDS flower" as you seem to want to paint her out as, it's not my responsibility to coddle her through her LDS learning experience.

And you're certainly not going to be one to take a high road if it's not your "responsibility." After all, atheism's not about reason and objectivity, it's about being a huge asshole to people who disagree with you.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  I'm here to expose the bullshit, not pander to it.

And you've exposed exactly how angry and belligerent you can get when confronted with someone who can't play the game the way you want to play. You've also exposed how angry and belligerent you can get when someone exposes your bullshit.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  That's ridiculous for you to expect of me.

Silly me. I thought I was among humanists and rationalists. I didn't realize this was just a big anti-religion circle-jerk.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  And if she really is so delicate and new and ill informed, which I don't know if she'd appreciate you saying that or agree with you on, then why in the hell would she have come here to, what I have to point out again is, an Atheist Forum. She came here. I didn't come to her. You're statement is wrong.

No, it's accurate, you're just making poor excuses for your horrid behavior. She should have known better, so you are justified in howling and cursing at her in all caps and repeatedly calling her a racist while you find different ways to insist she's mentally handicapped.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Like I said, I bent over backwards for her to respond to her questions of, "Where does it say that? Who said that? What prophet said that? That official LDS doctrine?", etc... I even diagrammed an example in unambiguous language.

I spent hours doing this...for her.

Don't insult my intelligence. You did it so you could win a rhetoric battle.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  For her because she could not be bothered to do her own research on her "own" church and her "own" beliefs.

You didn't provide her with research, you provided your own context and interpretation for a bunch of texts you don't understand that function within a religious community you understand even less and then shotgunned them at her while you shrieked "RACISM!!!" in all caps at her. That's not how you educate someone, that's just how you put them on the defensive and be a colossal asshole.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Because she does not know her own history.

You don't know the history that well either, so keep the rhetoric down.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Because she do not "own [a] particularly informed cultural and racial awareness"?! Really? That's a cop out. That's not my responsibility, that's hers, and when I faced her with it her response was to like the racism she found there.

So she came unprepared into a discussion and you took advantage of her to rhetorically brutalize her. You're such a big person.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  And let me make this last point clear. I am not attacking her as an "angry atheist". I'm not even attacking her.

You repeatedly shouted at her that she was "fucking crazy." You either think I'm an absolute fool or you think that merely asserting anything you want reifies the assertion.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  She holds to racist beliefs, notions and concepts.

And your belligerence certainly didn't help her at all, it just put her on the defensive and made her wonder why what she shared made you so angry.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  As long as she does, she's a racist.

And as long as you so angrily and thoughtlessly shriek at her, you're an asshat.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  She is free at any moment to drop those racist beliefs, notions, and concepts, and I'll happily not think of her as a racist anymore. She's the one who demonstrated that she holds agreement with those concepts. I didn't randomly make a claim about her. I even, toward the beginning of this thread, said I assume that neither of you, nor the average modern day LDS member, since 1978, is actually a racist. But she demonstrated it to me, there for I say it.

And, Maklelan, just in case you are not clear on this, let me double down on it now. Alla is a racist!

You have no idea if she's a racist or not.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  If you are not a racist in your heart (which I still hope she isn't) but you support racism and defend it, then what's the distinction.

She doesn't know she's defending racism, and your angry and belligerent tirades aren't helping her. If you cared at all for actually helping her understand, you'd be patient when you saw she didn't understand, you wouldn't see it as an opportunity to pounce on an unprepared opponent and brutalize her.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  You don't get a free pass for ignorance.

I'll hold you to that, then.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  Ignorance destroys and rots, and I fight that. That was the point of this whole post, to expose ignorance, and as you said, she dug in, instead of digging out.

Because your belligerence and anger forced her to the defensive. That's human nature. You get no free pass for being ignorant of that, meaning she dug in only because of how much of an asshole you were being. It's your fault she dug in, and now you're making up childish excuses for why you shouldn't have to take responsibility.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  She needs to confront the truth of the views of these things she holds to be true, that she is willing to blindly support and defend, and if she can come out the other side and realize they are in fact racist, and she can no longer defend these racist ideas and dogma, then good. I will be happy for her. But in the mean time I refused to coddle and enable racist notions.

Even when that refusal perpetuates the problem, evidently. Damn the results and full speed ahead. She should know better.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  I drop bombs on them.

Because that makes you feel good, and you don't appear to give a shit whether or not it helps. I wish I could say that were the exception here.

(17-01-2014 10:18 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  And if it makes her sad to be called a racist, then perhaps she needs to take a good strong look at why the claim is being made.

Perhaps there's a whole list of things you could do so that your points get across better, but who cares, right? Not your problem.

This is rich. A theist who wants to tell us, that off is a channel, that bald is a hair color, etc...

We don't reject the existence of god. We have no evidence for the reasonable conclusion that there is a god. You call it semantics, but its not. Its not a tomato tomado sort of thing.

So that I can use tiny words for you, how can you refuse or reject a gift that no one has given you? We don't reject god because we never concluded that there is a god to reject.

You should call Oxford. See if you can get your money back...

[maklelan]

(17-01-2014 11:25 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I explained to her how to quote chapter and verse from her scriptures.

And scriptures don't mean anything apart from their interpretation. Your interpretation may not match those of people who have an emic and informed perspective, meaning just quoting scripture doesn't really help.

[WitchSabrina]

(17-01-2014 11:40 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You should call Oxford. See if you can get your money back...

talk about 'laying waste" Old testament style !!!





Rule of thumb to debate on internet:
If you find you at ANY point must 'throw down' pedigree, educational background, etc as foundation for backup of statements you have made......... the debate IS OVER.
Obviously your beliefs, theories, offered opinions, debate, arguments etc is FAR TOO THIN to stand on its own merit.
In short.......... Oxford = Check and mate

[WitchSabrina]

(17-01-2014 11:41 AM)maklelan Wrote:  meaning just quoting scripture doesn't really help.

Maybe You could explain that to Alla then.

We'll wait.

[Cathym112]

(17-01-2014 11:38 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I don't deny I use rhetoric, but only in response to the rhetoric of others, and I'm willing to back it up with substance and even apologize and make peace if others are willing. I also think there are people out there who might disagree with you that my participation here serves no real purpose. They're not posting in these threads, though.

But mommy...he hit my FIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRSSSTTTT.

Do you know that passive aggressive behavior is actually the most aggressive form of interaction because it allows you to deny any accountability for the outwardly aggressive response you facilitated? Food for thought....

[WitchSabrina]

(17-01-2014 11:50 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  

(17-01-2014 11:38 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I don't deny I use rhetoric, but only in response to the rhetoric of others, and I'm willing to back it up with substance and even apologize and make peace if others are willing. I also think there are people out there who might disagree with you that my participation here serves no real purpose. They're not posting in these threads, though.

But mommy...he hit my FIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRSSSTTTT.

Do you know that passive aggressive behavior is actually the most aggressive form of interaction because it allows you to deny any accountability for the outwardly aggressive response you facilitated? Food for thought....

(looks for horn to blow)

[Cathym112]

(17-01-2014 11:46 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  

(17-01-2014 11:40 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You should call Oxford. See if you can get your money back...

talk about 'laying waste" Old testament style !!!





Rule of thumb to debate on internet:
If you find you at ANY point must 'throw down' pedigree, educational background, etc as foundation for backup of statements you have made......... the debate IS OVER.
Obviously your beliefs, theories, offered opinions, debate, arguments etc is FAR TOO THIN to stand on its own merit.
In short.......... Oxford = Check and mate

[maklelan]

(17-01-2014 11:40 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  This is rich. A theist who wants to tell us, that off is a channel, that bald is a hair color, etc...

If you honestly think atheism and belief are dichotomous, I have some beachfront property in which you may be interested. You would do well to actually look up some scholarship on the question, because obviously none of you has any exposure whatsoever to the psychology and sociology of religion or atheism. The simple fact is that the etymological fallacy definition of atheism (weak atheism, "a lack of belief" atheism) is just a rhetorical device. That definition is useful in certain kinds of discourse, primarily those where the most inclusion is rhetorical useful, such as insisting all infants are born atheists. Remarkably few people actually conceptualize of their atheism that way, though, and even fewer still on atheist discussion boards (people who just don't have a belief rarely congregate online to argue about it). Atheism in its most common iterations is a constellation of assertions or beliefs about reality and about religion. For some atheists, atheism is an actual religion, complete with hymns, Sunday meetings, sermons, and collection plates. For others it is still a community tied together by a shared worldview or set of beliefs.

(17-01-2014 11:40 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  We don't reject the existence of god.

The vast, vast majority of atheists do, and I would have a hard time believing you honestly and sincerely maintain a suspension of judgment on the question. I could certainly be wrong, but nothing I've seen up to this point suggests it.

(17-01-2014 11:40 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  We have no evidence for the reasonable conclusion that there is a god. You call it semantics, but its not. Its not a tomato tomado sort of thing.

That's not semantics, that's phonology, and if you insist that lack of evidence means anything more than a complete suspension of judgment, then you insist on a belief.

(17-01-2014 11:40 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  So that I can use tiny words for you,

Yeah, I sure need the help.

(17-01-2014 11:40 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  how can you refuse or reject a gift that no one has given you? We don't reject god because we never concluded that there is a god to reject.

And yet you spend so much time here telling other people they are wrong. That's not a suspension of belief.

(17-01-2014 11:40 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You should call Oxford. See if you can get your money back...

Maybe you should try to understand where I'm coming from before your ego forces you to start speaking down to my background with, and understanding of, atheism.

[WitchSabrina]

butthurt does not inspire confidence