A question for "Light in the Darkness"

[_Coggins7]

Tal, you're out of the Church, you think its bunk. Why don't you drop it and move on with your life. Why are you here? Why are you so concerned with whether or not Light or I or anyone else are convinced of its truth. It fulfills us as human beings and gives life meaning. If it does not do that for you, find something that does (if possible), but why the incessant criticism. Why would it make you feel better if I left the Church too?

[_Coggins7]

The idea of the holy ghost testifying to the truth seems laughable to most exmos. For it to be otherwise would be dangerous for their mental health. A exmo must be like PP in this regard. The holy ghost must be limited to a warm fuzzy or some delusional experience that can also be achieved at a ciricus. Such is life as an exmo or as apostmo.

Ahhhhh, the crux of the matter indeed...

[_silentkid]

The idea of the holy ghost testifying to the truth seems laughable to most exmos. For it to be otherwise would be dangerous for their mental health. A exmo must be like PP in this regard. The holy ghost must be limited to a warm fuzzy or some delusional experience that can also be achieved at a ciricus. Such is life as an exmo or as apostmo.

A couple of percocet trumps any of those good holy ghost feelings any day. ;)

PS It's good to see you here again, why me.

[_Tal Bachman]

(Humble) Light in the Darkness

Yes, I understand you think that Richard Dawkins's position comprises a contradiction. But in that post, you implied that you didn't believe that Mormon apologists were wasting their time defending Mormonism.

I was just curious: do you think they are wasting their time, or not?

[_asbestosman]

In that thread, the thesis is that an atheist has no rational basis to say apologists, or anyone for that matter, is wasting their talents: meaning that they ought to use them in a different way. Mormons could be wasting their talents and this still would be true. For instance, in that thread the example being used by Beckwith is the young earth creationist Kurt Wise. I do feel he has squandered his gifts in an important sense as does Beckwith. However, I fail to see how an atheist can make a similar claim beyond reporting their own subjective feelings.

Perhaps my post here is better suited to that thread, but it just occurred to me that if atheists were correct about there being no God, then in some sense there is indeed a rational basis for them to make the claim that apologists are wasting their time. The reason for that is that if atheists are correct, then the purpose for which apologists believe they defend the faith--namely that such will bring about more joy in the afterlife or similar goals--will not be served and thus is a waste because it would not coincide with the deepest goals which such apologists have. That is, of course, assuming atheists are correct which is a huge assumption (and fortunately not one widely accepted--yet). But from Dawkins' point of view such would seem to be a rational view of apologetic talents.

Of course there could be other apologists who defend the ideas for the challenge too. For those there is no rational basis to say it is a waste simply because their goal is accomplished by their actions.