The testimony: An Emotional Lie

[_Runtu]

To not subscribe 100 percent to the Mormon church is blasphemy. What doctrines do you renounce?

I don't think I've met very many Mormons who subscribe 100 percent to church doctrines. If not accepting everything 100 percent were blasphemy, at least half the active members would have been excommunicated by now. I do think Nephi's approach is unique and possibly puts him on the margins of orthodoxy, but I don't think anyone would consider him blasphemous. I figure if his approach works for him, that's wonderful. It doesn't work for me.

[_Some Schmo]

Dude, your ability too conflate non-analogous stuff is awesome to observe.

Cool... I've noticed that when people are presented with analogies that defeat their arguments online they either say its reductio ad absurdum, or ad hominem, or some other logical fallacy, follow this by a general attack of the individual itself, and/or take what they use for support and point out the differences it has to the original argument.

Yeah, that's right... it's my inability to counter your analogy that's the problem. It certainly couldn't be the weakness of the analogy itself! Heavens, no!

At a certain point, dude, it just becomes not worth it to me anymore.

by the way, I don't have anything against you personally. I wasn't actually trying to attack you. It's just that I've noticed a trend from you of coming up with ill formed analogies. You have a habit of taking real life, natural examples and applying them to your supernatural world. I'm afraid that sort of analogy is just weak and not really worth discussing. Sorry man.

[_Nephi]

Dude, your ability too conflate non-analogous stuff is awesome to observe.

Cool... I've noticed that when people are presented with analogies that defeat their arguments online they either say its reductio ad absurdum, or ad hominem, or some other logical fallacy, follow this by a general attack of the individual itself, and/or take what they use for support and point out the differences it has to the original argument.

Yeah, that's right... it's my inability to counter your analogy that's the problem. It certainly couldn't be the weakness of the analogy itself! Heavens, no!

At a certain point, dude, it just becomes not worth it to me anymore.

by the way, I don't have anything against you personally. I wasn't actually trying to attack you. It's just that I've noticed a trend from you of coming up with ill formed analogies. You have a habit of taking real life, natural examples and applying them to your supernatural world. I'm afraid that sort of analogy is just weak and not really worth discussing. Sorry man.

Hold up here. Since you do not believe in my "supernatural world" then I cannot use analogies within the super natural world to support my claim, therefore I am FORCED to use natural exmaples as analogies. Your requirements to prove my point are impossible to obtain. I either use analogies from a "supernatural world" which you refute because you do not believe in it anyhow, or I use those from the natural world, which you then tell me I cannot use because you find no similarities between the two concepts. So, either way I cannot prove my point to you. You set me up to automatically fail....

[_Mercury]

Dude, your ability too conflate non-analogous stuff is awesome to observe.

Cool... I've noticed that when people are presented with analogies that defeat their arguments online they either say its reductio ad absurdum, or ad hominem, or some other logical fallacy, follow this by a general attack of the individual itself, and/or take what they use for support and point out the differences it has to the original argument.

Yeah, that's right... it's my inability to counter your analogy that's the problem. It certainly couldn't be the weakness of the analogy itself! Heavens, no!

At a certain point, dude, it just becomes not worth it to me anymore.

by the way, I don't have anything against you personally. I wasn't actually trying to attack you. It's just that I've noticed a trend from you of coming up with ill formed analogies. You have a habit of taking real life, natural examples and applying them to your supernatural world. I'm afraid that sort of analogy is just weak and not really worth discussing. Sorry man.

He does not realize you were poking fun at him.

[_Some Schmo]

Hold up here. Since you do not believe in my "supernatural world" then I cannot use analogies within the super natural world to support my claim, therefore I am FORCED to use natural exmaples as analogies. Your requirements to prove my point are impossible to obtain. I either use analogies from a "supernatural world" which you refute because you do not believe in it anyhow, or I use those from the natural world, which you then tell me I cannot use because you find no similarities between the two concepts. So, either way I cannot prove my point to you. You set me up to automatically fail....

I just came and revisited this thread due to Scottie's reference to it, and realized I'd missed this response.

I just wanted to say, Nephi, that this is an interesting assessment and you've taught me something about myself today.

You're right; I seem to be impervious to supernatural thought due to my lack of acceptance of a supernatural reality. I seem to be making good progress with my personal growth. I appreciate you mentioning this.

Also, I wouldn't take it personally (I'm doubting you are, somehow, given the flavor of your posts). I'm just not interested in taking about fanciful things as though they're reality. I'm entirely willing to do so with the understanding, however, that it's all conjecture and made up, just like I'm willing to discuss a good book of fiction. You lose me as soon as you start making claims (or in any way intimating) that the fiction is real, that's all.