Boxcar's napping.
Don't know why this is so difficult, unless one is truly ignorant, in the most charitable sense of the word, of basic Mormonism, or simply wants to play Gotcha! This would likely approximate Boxcar's objections.It's an easy read...
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2...nity_a_quo.php
...As for me, I used to keep a copy of Isaiah Bennett's "Inside Mormonism" on my fireplace for those visits, but now just ask, "If "the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints had a two-time loser regarding founding a church in their title, isn't it possible that the current LDS church founded by Joseph Smith could apostatize?"
If the New Atheists constitute mainstream atheism, why should one reject the flavors of Julian Baggini ("The New Atheism gets atheism wrong"), Alain de Botton (Dawkins' approach to unbelief is "aggressive" and "destructive") Tanya Gold ("The secular must accept that not all religion is malice and much despised 'religious' practice"), Douglas Murray (“The more I listened to Dawkins and his colleagues, the more the nature of what has gone wrong with their argument seemed clear. Religion was portrayed as a force of unremitting awfulness, a poisoned root from which no good fruit could grow. It seems to me the work not of a thinker but of any balanced observer to notice that this is not the case. A new … dogma has emerged. And the argument has stalled”), Andrew Brown ("They have two things in common. They are none of them philosophers and, though most are scientists, none study psychology, history, the sociology of religion, or any other discipline which might cast light on the objects of their execration. All of them make claims about religion and about believers which go far beyond the mere disbelief in God which I take to be the distinguishing mark of an atheist"), John Gray ("Fortunately, this type of atheism isn’t the only one that has ever existed. There have been many modern atheisms, some of them more cogent and more intellectually liberating than the type that makes so much noise today"), Jeff Sparrow ("We can save atheism from the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris")?
Or, why budge from the classical atheism of Nietzsche ("Much less may one suppose that many people know as yet what this event [the death of God] really means -- and how much must collapse now that this faith has been undermined because it was built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it; for example, the whole of our European morality"), or reject where Alan Rosenburg claims that the implications of scientism lead, a "nice nihilism"?
