Buffalo wrote: Apparently stem didn't learn anything from his time here, except to sort of, in a garbled way, repeat back the criticisms that were made of his "remote possibilities" approach to belief.
He was the king of possibilities, or at least all the ones that helped him protect his beliefs. :)
Buffalo wrote: Apparently stem didn't learn anything from his time here, except to sort of, in a garbled way, repeat back the criticisms that were made of his "remote possibilities" approach to belief.
He was the king of possibilities, or at least all the ones that helped him protect his beliefs. :)
LOL Very true. One of my favorite memories of stem is running into a thread arguing and disputing what a non-believer has said, and then by the end of the thread he is still arguing but no longer disputing what was said at the beginning of the thread.
ldsfaqs wrote: The Church "indicates" the most reasonable artistic expression which imply's translating.... That is the plates on the table and Joseph sitting at it, and maybe with Oliver also at the table.
Head in a hat would be an awkward and confusing presentation. You wouldn't know who's head in the hat, etc.
Tarski wrote:It is simple. The (usually inchoate) epistemology implicit in the notion of a private inner witness from the Holy Ghost just can't be made to work. Knowledge has to make reference to publically available evidence and norms of rationality--at least in principle. You have to have good reason to say you know something.
It is no wonder that contradictions arise between different people's revelations. The number of religions and diverse metaphysical beliefes that arise because some body somewhere had a kind of inner mystical experience is huge. Good methods converge. Bad methods diverge. Thus we do have some good reasons to deny this notion of personal revelation as it is normally concieved. In some sense then, what we know is that it doesn't work.
It is amazing that people just can't apply this lesson to their own relgion.
Wade wrote:I appreciate you demonstrating that some secularists can be as narrow-minded, fundamentalist, and dogmatic as some religionists.
It isn't unexpected that some people who flunk spiritual tests will blame the test. From what I can tell, the tendency in this regard seems to correspond increasingly with the size of one's ego. ;)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Gotta love how Wade thinks he can dismiss Tarski's level-headed, clear-eyed scientific analysis of personal revelation by projecting his own narrow approach back on Tarski.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Wade wrote:I appreciate you demonstrating that some secularists can be as narrow-minded, fundamentalist, and dogmatic as some religionists.
It isn't unexpected that some people who flunk spiritual tests will blame the test. From what I can tell, the tendency in this regard seems to correspond increasingly with the size of one's ego. ;)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Gotta love how Wade thinks he can dismiss Tarski's level-headed, clear-eyed scientific analysis of personal revelation by projecting his own narrow approach back on Tarski.
I note that the first three originate with Juliann's "angry exies" meme. The other two appear to be Wade's own creation.
If he mentions the mental and emotional defects of apostates and that he's only trying to improve our cognitive abilities and help us "heal," you'll have the makings of the ultimate Wade post.
From the "My Porn is OK, Your Porn Is Not OK" a.k.a. "The Lady Porn" thread,
Minos wrote:Too much sex talk.
In a thread that is utterly devoid of any sex talk whatsoever...
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
Stargazer wrote:The fact that some experiences can be so induced doesn't give me pause so much as it tells me that our brains were designed to be able to receive such impressions as directed from outside of them.
If you read my earlier post, you may recall that I had an unmistakeable impression that I was to be called to a position of responsibility, and that this impression was later confirmed by being so called. Perhaps you would choose to believe that all of this occurred because self-generated electrical impulses in my brain triggered a cascade of chemical release and, perhaps, shall we take this into the realm of particle physics, caused quantum entrainment of a particle that subsequently hit the stake president two weeks later and caused his brain to generate electrical impulses and chemical releases, making him call me to the position?
Hmmm. A bit too Rube Goldberg for my tastes, but nevertheless I shall consider this for a moment. <tick, tick, tick>
Nah. Occam's Razor alone would cause me to reject the scenario above as not the simplest explanation of what happened. I find that the simplest explanation is that God wanted me to be called to that position and inspired the stake president to make the call.
But if you prefer a more convoluted explanation that leaves God out of it, I shan't argue with you about it. The fact that I was there and it happened to me does tend to make me believe my own experience over any attempt to ascribe it to random physical phenomena.
Occam's razor fail.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
