OK. So I am an adult atheist, and mikwut thinks I am not delusional. What a relief.
Yes, that respect is afforded from me to your position, I don't think it delusional. Just wrong.
And it you don't take an OP seriously, the most effective way of making that point is to post slabs of text about it.
Interesting, is that how agreement and disagreement works for you. Post the slabs of text as you put it not on that which you disagree, or even strongly disagree - but rather on what then is the alternative - slabs of text on what you agree with? Got it. That says a lot.
mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
Chap wrote:And it you don't take an OP seriously, the most effective way of making that point is to post slabs of text about it.
Interesting, is that how agreement and disagreement works for you. Post the slabs of text as you put it not on that which you disagree, or even strongly disagree - but rather on what then is the alternative - slabs of text on what you agree with? Got it. That says a lot.
mikwut
Oh, I see. When you say "I don't take that position seriously', it means 'I disagree strongly with that position and will now devote considerable effort to arguing against it."
Got it.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
If there's one thing we're all concerned about, it's what works. What's pragmatic. It's not clear that there's anything pragmatic about dead dunking and temple ordinances in this life. They're just assumptions about what will be pragmatic in the after-life so, if they are delusions... then you have engaged in wasting your time do extraneous work for something you will never receive. The only value it has in this life is it makes some people happy. They're hardly essential saving ordinances if the only valid value is in whether it happens to make you feel better being deluded.
Also not following your point, here... Do you agree that some beliefs can be considered more delusional that others, according to reason?
I did give this too short of notice, I apologize. I am first confused by your use of "reason" and "pragmatism" you will have to be more precise. I'm utilizing the OPs use of the term 'delusional' - I think your merely referring to them as wrong. So your really asking are some beliefs considered more wrong then others after we have verified them to be wrong to which I can only offer you the obvious reply - of course. You also seem to be asking within a pragmatic framework - are they considered more wrong? Does it work within another framework, solidarity - group bonding maybe - I don't know your the pragmatist?
mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
Oh, I see. When you say "I don't take that position seriously', it means 'I disagree strongly with that position and will now devote considerable effort to arguing against it."
Got it.
Do you mind specifying what your referring to?
mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
You know what, never mind, response is sure - there are positions I disagree with, strongly disagree with and even don't take very seriously but still take time to refute. If someone else takes them seriously there is reason to offer effort.
Do you have anything more substantive regarding my posts? If not good day.
mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
Oh, I see. When you say "I don't take that position seriously', it means 'I disagree strongly with that position and will now devote considerable effort to arguing against it."
Got it.
Do you mind specifying what your referring to?
mikwut
I'll be happy to spend more time and energy on this exchange with mikwut if any other reader of this board cares to state that they share his position that the reference of the post he quotes is in some way unclear.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Even if you don't think the OP--as written--is worth taking seriously, there are still tangential notions in it that I think are worth considering. I think the heart of DrW's question has to do with whether or not certain LDS beliefs are "crazy." The example he adduced was the teaching that kids who are murdered before age 8 are sent to the Celestial Kingdom. Do you think this is a crazy or delusional doctrine, mikwut?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
I think it is incorrect, wrong. I don't think it is delusional or crazy as in pathological mental illness. If someone wants the rhetorical force of those adjectives, simply divorce them from the DSM or professional types of diagnoses.
mikwut
Last edited by Guest on Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
Chap, (repeating this because you seem to have missed it)
You know what, never mind, response is sure - there are positions I disagree with, strongly disagree with and even don't take very seriously but still take time to refute. If someone else takes them seriously there is reason to offer effort.
Do you have anything more substantive regarding my posts? If not good day.
mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
Thank you, EAllusion, for attempting to bring reason to this discussion. This attempt to paint all Mormons as delusional is a good example of why therapists need years of training. Ludicrous, simply ludicrous.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.