Joseph Smith--the best 'wing man' Brigham Young ever had

[Morley]

His "Everything is subjective" has a certain banal nihilism buried in it. It projects a sort of dull, flattened worldview, where nothing is really worth debating, everything is arbitrary, and nothing ultimately matters. He's doing this in the area where he really believes that everything matters: whether or not the CoJCoLDS is "true."

On the contrary, I find the debate rather interesting.

You may indeed find the debate interesting--but as you already know, that wasn't my point.

My point was that your defense for not engaging--that "everything is subjective"--is banal, postmodernist drivel. It's an unworthy strategy for what you're attempting to accomplish.

[MG 2.0]

The problem is that for the immense majority of the human race, the kinds of "faith, spiritual intuition, and religious tradition" that religious believers bring to the discussion depends on the religion that their mothers and fathers had, and in which they raised their children, in other words, a matter of pure chance. The conclusions they come to are therefore likely to be at random variance with one another; there is no objective way of choosing between one or another, nor is there any reason to suppose that such an arbitrary way of selecting the starting point for enquiry should produce results corresponding to objective reality. So, unlike the case of those who "rely on reason, critical thinking, evidence, and the scientific method", there is no way that consensus among human beings who think like that can be expected.

That is the world which we see. Disparity is not evidence for the nonexistence of God. Conclusions that different folks come to, generally speaking, lead towards good works an and moral behavior and recognition of ‘sin’. When a person is living their religion and/or their eight fold path, in the case of Buddhism, or any other system that leads towards goodness, empathy, charitable works…they are growing closer to the Creator of all things.

I don’t see your reasoning as reason, at all, to disbelieve in God.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

On the contrary, I find the debate rather interesting.

You may indeed find the debate interesting--but as you already know, that wasn't my point.

My point was that your defense for not engaging--that "everything is subjective"--is banal, postmodernist drivel. It's an unworthy strategy for what you're attempting to accomplish.

I have no idea what you’re saying here and how it applies to everything I’ve said recently in this thread or what came before. I don’t see anything to engage with here. You really didn’t engage with anything I’ve said on the last page or two.

I suppose I can say, “Have a nice day!”

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

It's an unworthy strategy for what you're attempting to accomplish.

What are you trying to accomplish here MG? It’s certainly not clear to me, though I did think the LDS Ft McHenry analogy was appropriate.

My own take is you are “putting your faith to the test” by taking on all comers and at the end being able to stand in spite of all of this affliction.

Kind of a modern-day Moroni.

I’d go as far as to say that through your eyes the whole group here is seen as saying: “Oh, you want religion, do you?” and you are demonstrating that you can “endure to the end” or something.

Close?

[Res Ipsa]

MG 2.0,

So, when Malkie combined subjective and objective, it was so complicated that you just couldn’t answer, but when you combine subjective and objective, it’s nuanced and sophisticated reasoning?

What you’re doing is equivocating on the relationship between subjective and objective. When Malkie combines them, we must shift his words to separate the subjective from the objective and bin the latter. But when you combine them, we must praise the marvelous and nuanced combination of both.

When Malkie speaks, you treat the two as polar opposite. When you speak, the two are harmonious. Pure fallacy.

[Morley]

You may indeed find the debate interesting--but as you already know, that wasn't my point.

My point was that your defense for not engaging--that "everything is subjective"--is banal, postmodernist drivel. It's an unworthy strategy for what you're attempting to accomplish.

I have no idea what you’re saying here and how it applies to everything I’ve said recently in this thread or what came before. I don’t see anything to engage with here. You really didn’t engage with anything I’ve said on the last page or two.

I suppose I can say, “Have a nice day!”

Regards,
MG

You're saying all arguments are subjective--both the critical and the apologetic, both malkie's and yours. You're using that as an excuse to avoid answering malkie.

[Res Ipsa]

I have no idea what you’re saying here and how it applies to everything I’ve said recently in this thread or what came before. I don’t see anything to engage with here. You really didn’t engage with anything I’ve said on the last page or two.

I suppose I can say, “Have a nice day!”

Regards,
MG

You're saying all arguments are subjective--both the critical and the apologetic, both malkie's and yours. You're using that as an excuse to avoid answering malkie.

I don’t think it’s that. I think he’s saying that it’s valid for a theist to combine subjective and objective arguments, but not an atheist.

[Morley]

You're saying all arguments are subjective--both the critical and the apologetic, both malkie's and yours. You're using that as an excuse to avoid answering malkie.

I don’t think it’s that. I think he’s saying that it’s valid for a theist to combine subjective and objective arguments, but not an atheist.

Ah! You're probably right.

Maybe he'll clarify.

[Morley]

My point is that it makes it difficult to respond when a poster creates a list that is a mix of subjective elements mixed with what may be objective fact even if cherry picked. It would be awfully time consuming to separate fact from fiction (subjective elements). In my original response to malkie's list I responded to several of his concerns. It became evident to me that I was responding to this "mix" I've referred to and that as such we would continue to go around in circles.

You're right, many of these discussions do bounce back and forth intermingling fact with fiction (subjective elements). That's what makes it so hard for a believer to enter in and have the 'steam' to continue when subjective is mixed with objective facts that may be contextually independent of the 'larger story'. In my response to malkie I was simply pointing out the fact that subjective elements might skew the overall objective value of what is being said.

I admit, as has been said, that I also construct my posts not without subjective 'opinion' and belief. Critics do have the advantage because they take the position that only 'rational' conversation can rule the day. That which can be readily confirmed/proved through either the natural senses and/or that which has received overall consensus by those that consider themselves to be materialists and/or secular humanists. I see that as a limited way to view the world.

There will be conflict and disagreement as a result.

Again, my point is that critics, materialists, and secular humanists are just as prone to either consciously or unconsciously throw in subjective elements to the conversation that muddy the waters and make it difficult to respond especially when a large volume of text/lists are thrown in.

Beyond that, I don't think I was trying to make any other point.

I'm reading this as you saying all arguments have subjective portions. Yours, mine, theirs, ours, everyone's. Everything is subjective. Even objective truth is open to subjective interpretation, which makes even that which is objective somewhat subjective.

Res is reading it a little differently. Care to weigh in?

[Chap]

The problem is that for the immense majority of the human race, the kinds of "faith, spiritual intuition, and religious tradition" that religious believers bring to the discussion depends on the religion that their mothers and fathers had, and in which they raised their children, in other words, a matter of pure chance. The conclusions they come to are therefore likely to be at random variance with one another; there is no objective way of choosing between one or another, nor is there any reason to suppose that such an arbitrary way of selecting the starting point for enquiry should produce results corresponding to objective reality. So, unlike the case of those who "rely on reason, critical thinking, evidence, and the scientific method", there is no way that consensus among human beings who think like that can be expected.

That is the world which we see. Disparity is not evidence for the nonexistence of God.

That may be, but the unfortunate fact seems to be that all those religions can't be true at the same time. Thus the Abrahamic deity is a very poor fit with the Buddhist world view, in which deities are no more than beings (note the plural) above the human level, but still in need of release from the wheel of rebirth, desire and suffering. And, looked at closely, the Abrahamic deity is such a mess of contradictions that it is very difficult to see how there could be said to be any coherent evidence for his existence.

Conclusions that different folks come to, generally speaking, lead towards good works an and moral behavior and recognition of ‘sin’. When a person is living their religion and/or their eight fold path, in the case of Buddhism, or any other system that leads towards goodness, empathy, charitable works…they are growing closer to the Creator of all things.

The most scrupulously ethical, kind (and I may add socially and financially charitable) people I have met in the course of my life so far have been a family of completely atheist scientists, one of whose children once asked me "To what interesting question is the idea of 'God' supposed to be an answer?" . The Confucian thinker Meng Zi (name often latinised as Mencius), active c. 320 BCE summarised the classic view of human nature held amongst most of the educated elite of China over many centuries: human nature is naturally good. People's original nature can be distorted if they are subject to rulers who terrorise or starve them, but if you let them live a normal human life in secure conditions they will be dutiful children, caring parents, loyal friends and good neighbours. No deity is needed to supply them with commandments from above. Decency and kindness are built in. I have to say that my experience in spending time in a number of different cultures has tended to incline me to the same view. Learn enough of the local language to be polite and express gratitude, behave respectfully in accordance with local ideas of what that means, and most people are glad to see you and happy to help.

Looking at the state of the world today, especially in the Middle East, it is by no means clear to me that the creation of the concept of the Abrahamic deity worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims has, on the whole, been on balance a good thing for humanity. I don't think I need enter into any details to make that point, do I?