Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, remembered the day this way: “The plates were secreted about three miles from home… Joseph, on coming to them, took them from their secret place, and, wrapping them in his linen frock, placed them under his arm and started for home.” After proceeding a short distance, he thought it would be more safe to leave the road and go through the woods. Traveling some distance after he left the road, he came to a large windfall, and as he was jumping over a log, a man sprang up from behind it, and gave him a heavy blow with a gun. Joseph turned around and knocked him down, then ran at the top of his speed. About half a mile further he was attacked again in the same manner as before; he knocked this man down in like manner as the former, and ran on again; and before he reached home he was assaulted the third time. In striking the last one he dislocated his thumb, which, however, he did not notice until he came within sight of the house, when he threw himself down in the corner of the fence in order to recover his breath. As soon as he was able, he arose and came to the house. lie was still altogether speechless from fright and the fatigue of running” (History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, Lucy Smith, pp.107-108). www.mrm.org Some Mormons object, “The military run miles, with a heavier weight.” But they forget that backpacks distribute the weight. Practice what you preach, guys, and make a YouTube video that demonstrates running miles with …
Video Rating: 4 / 5
backacnetreatment.info Excess oils and dead skills cells find their way into your pores, and that creates a blockage in your skin. The normal reaction from your body is to turn this into a blackhead to get the block-age out, but if bacteria finds its way into the blackhead, it will turn into an acne outbreak. Your back and face have more oil glands than the rest of your body, which is why acne break-outs happen here more than anywhere else. So here is how you can change a few of your daily habits and clear up your acne at the same time. Your Clothes Can Cause Back Acne Most people would never think that the clothes they wear could cause an acne outbreak on their back, but it can. And the reason acne breakouts are more common among teenagers is because heavy school backpacks are also responsible for acne problems. If you wear tight clothes every day (specifically, a tight shirt), every time you move body, your shirt rubs against your skin. Tight shirts cause more pressure, and thus more irritation on your back. The oils and dead skin cells cant except from your body either, so instead they are rubbed against your back all day. Those oils and skin cells will infect your skin and cause an acne outbreak. School backpacks are filled with tons of books, papers and everything a student needs at school. They are worn on your shoulders, and theyre so heavy that they can easily irritate the skin and instantly cause an acne outbreak. To solve these problems, wear loose-fitting …
Wheres the sack? Where are the trees? Where are the rocks and sticks? Where is the night sky? Where are the slopes? Where is the dead wood? Where is the cracked skull of the one that caught up to him? Where are the hiding places in the forest?
Truly to redo such a scenario accurately you must have all these as well as one good hard working farm hand to play smith and a random group of people to chase after him. Though the cracked skull should probable be avoided.
@aaronshaf2006 See, you’ve lost the plot now because you’re resorting to insults. Good luck proving your imaginary god; I’m done with you.
@AtheistOnTheEdge If you’re going to tackle some serious issues regarding atheism/theism debates, you’re going to need to know what the word “ontological” means. And you’re going to need to know the difference between ontology and epistemology. If you’ve read even a good philosophical book arguing for atheism, you should know what the terms mean by now.
@aaronshaf2006 Now you’re just confusing the issue with techno-babble that you probably copied and pasted from some apologist website. You have two arguments and they are both logically flawed. You think the universe and morals prove your god exists. You offer no evidence in support of these and your argument comes down to the fact that you are merely ignorant of other explanations. That’s the difference between me and you; I will admit when I don’t know something, but you feign certainty.
@AtheistOnTheEdge You are conflating an ontological foundation for ethics with some kind of articulation of obligations, which is wrong. You said, “You try to make it seem that the only explanation is that a god must exist.” Well, it’s logically impossible for there to be an infinite regress of time. And if everything that has a beginning has a cause, the universe (which had a beginning) had to have a cause. And not only that, but a timeless, immaterial cause greater than or equal to the effect.
@aaronshaf2006 Your “ultimate foundation” exists in your head! That’s not very ultimate at all; it’s imaginary. An ultimate foundation would be a clear, unambiguous list of rights and wrongs, not a voice in your head that only you can hear!
As for the cosmological argument, you’re saying simply that you don’t understand how the universe can exist without a higher power. You try to make it seem that the only explanation is that a god must exist. This is a classic argument from ignorance.
@AtheistOnTheEdge The ultimate foundation is an ultimate personal being. That is what people like me mean by “God.” If you believe all morals are subjectively invented or artificial constructs with no ultimate foundation, then you have to deal with the absurdity that entails: torturing babies for fun is not objectively morally wrong. On the cosmological argument you have simply waved your hand.
@aaronshaf2006 You’re talking absolute gibberish now. I’ve asked you several times to tell me what this “ultimate moral foundation” is and you still haven’t said what it is. Without a moral foundation then there’s no such thing as objective morals which makes both your arguments completely worthless. 1/. “God made the universe” – a textbook argument from ignorance and 2/. “Morals come from God” – all morals are subjective and are ‘made up’ by people as society needs them.
@AtheistOnTheEdge If all morals themselves ultimately evolve, then they are merely subjective and invented, ephemeral, ultimately baseless and groundless. This entails that torturing babies for fun isn’t objectively wrong (i.e. real independent of the evolution of one’s subjective understanding, etc.). Again, the absurdity of atheism shows itself. Tell us with explicitness: do you personally believe that torturing babies for fun is morally objectively wrong? If so, why ultimately?
@aaronshaf2006 Morals evolve over time. Take slavery for example; despite your god allegedly claiming slavery was ok, we now know that slavery is very wrong. Words like subjective and objective are really just over-complicating the issue of morals and it seems like a pathetic attempt by religious people to keep their god alive in people’s minds.
And you still haven’t told me what your foundation is. You claim “God is the foundation,” but your god exists only in your mind. So what is it?
@AtheistOnTheEdge If morals are merely evolutionary adaptations, then you only prove my point since they are then merely subjective. Pay careful attention to the descriptive words I have been using: Without God there are no objective moral values, duties, and obligations, nor any foundation for such a thing. If all you have is evolution to appeal to, then torturing babies for fun isn’t objectively morally wrong. Hence one of the absurdities of atheism.
@AtheistOnTheEdge Science depends on philosophical assumptions, and science and philosophy end up intersecting very explicitly at times. The origin of the universe is one of the places. Whether or not you agree, you still need to account for the beginning of the universe, as well as the philosophical proofs against the possibility of an infinitely old universe. Then you need to deal with the *kind* of cause it would take to begin a universe.
@aaronshaf2006 Science deals with reality; religion deals with fantasy. You can’t use one to back the other. If you’re arguing for a religious belief like, “God made the universe,” you can’t use science, because as soon as you invoke a supernatural cause, that’s the end of science. And the supernatural cause was invoked here before you even started arguing!
Regarding morals – morals are the product of evolution. Tribes with good morals survived, tribes with bad morals died. No god necessary.
@AtheistOnTheEdge And you have forgotten that I have pointed you to the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem as well as the philosophical problem of the impossibility of an infinite regress of time (since it would have taken an infinite amount of time to arrive at the present, hence the present never would have been arrived at). And yes, you still need to prove that we can have objective (real independent of human opinion) moral values, duties, and obligations without God as foundation.
@aaronshaf2006 I think it’s you who have forgotten what this argument is about. You’re trying to prove your god is real. You began by using two “evidences;” 1. The universe had a beginning; your god did it and 2. people have morals; your god gave people morals. I responded by pointing out to you that there’s no certainty the universe even had a beginning and now I have to convince you that morals can come about without divine intervention. So, we have evolved morals. Morals by natural selection.
@AtheistOnTheEdge Perhaps you are misunderstanding the nature of the argument. This is about ontological foundation, not epistemology. In any case, neither you nor I don’t need anyone to explicitly tell us that torturing babies is objectively morally wrong. We both intuit that such a thing is wicked. But if there is no God, then something far worse than “needing to be told” over such an obvious thing is the case: horrific things become amoral–neither truly right nor wrong. Baby-torture included
@aaronshaf2006 So you have to be told not to torture babies, huh? This is your logic. If the bible didn’t tell you not to have sex with animals, you’d have sex with animals, right?
@AtheistOnTheEdge Tell me, Mr. “I’m [Supposedly] A Not Ludicrous Atheist”, is torturing babies for fun objectively morally wrong? If yes, then what ultimate foundation does your atheism give us for such ethics? If not, then who is being ludicrous?
@aaronshaf2006 I’m not the one claiming there is an “ultimate foundation” of morality; you are. I see you’re having trouble backing up your assertions with logic or evidence. This comes as no surprise to me but I hope at least it indicates to you how silly it is to make such a ludicrous claim.
@AtheistOnTheEdge Care you tell us what ultimate foundation ethics you as an atheist have for ethics, i.e. objective moral values, duties, and obligations?
DONT REPLY TO ME IM DONE WITH THIS DEBATE. I DONT CARE ANYMORE.
@settypatch NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE. ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.
@aaronshaf2006 Ok, so you’re using science to prove the universe had a begining and then using religion to believe that your god made the universe. That’s ridiculous! And you’re using “intuition” and “science” Come on!
“By definition and logical necessity this ultimate ground would have to be a personal being” That’s just a baseless assertion! If you’re just going to believe some nonsense for no reason, then at least have the balls to admit. Don’t try to make it sound logical when it is not.