Do DCP and the Mopologists Understand Atheism?

[Kishkumen]

There is certainly a big difference between knowing facts about a subject and gaining a greater appreciation and true grasp of it. I have known *about* Platonism for decades, and I have read a number of things about it, but it took a very long time to start gaining a real appreciation of the subject, to become truly aware of its significance to my world in a more than “footnotes to Plato” sense.

I will differ with my colleagues on DCP having an appreciation and grasp of Islam. I think he does. But atheism? No way.

[Philo Sofee]

There is certainly a big difference between knowing facts about a subject and gaining a greater appreciation and true grasp of it. I have known *about* Platonism for decades, and I have read a number of things about it, but it took a very long time to start gaining a real appreciation of the subject, to become truly aware of its significance to my world in a more than “footnotes to Plato” sense.

I will differ with my colleagues on DCP having an appreciation and grasp of Islam. I think he does. But atheism? No way.

I suspect you are in the more correct category here, with the caveat that Peterson learned Islam for the money sake, or testimony sake, not for its own sake. I mean he used it as a basis for his career at BYU, not through some spiritual confirmation of its spiritual value, hardly spiritually inspiring that. I believe somewhere I have read Midgley really letting Jan Shipps have a piece of his mind for her doing the same with Mormonism. And, Peterson uses Islam as a foil to compare to his much more true Mormonism, a basis to insure an apostasy has occurred, and therefore Joseph Smith stays ahead of the class in front of Muhammad at all times, and in all things, whether it be scriptural, prophetic, gifts of the spirit, Zion, heaven, doctrine, history, etc.

[Kishkumen]

I suspect you are in the more correct category here, with the caveat that Peterson learned Islam for the money sake, or testimony sake, not for its own sake. I mean he used it as a basis for his career at BYU, not through some spiritual confirmation of its spiritual value, hardly spiritually inspiring that. I believe somewhere I have read Midgley really letting Jan Shipps have a piece of his mind for her doing the same with Mormonism. And, Peterson uses Islam as a foil to compare to his much more true Mormonism, a basis to insure an apostasy has occurred, and therefore Joseph Smith stays ahead of the class in front of Muhammad at all times, and in all things, whether it be scriptural, prophetic, gifts of the spirit, Zion, heaven, doctrine, history, etc.

That’s a tough one, Philo. I am inclined to give Professor P. the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the sincerity informing his interest in Islam. The problem that we face is that we are dealing with a person who chose to become a public apologist for a religious organization that is rather authoritarian. That means he has voluntarily chosen to conform his public persona to the rather restrictive confines appropriate for his role and the organization itself. Maybe in the process he has sacrificed much of who he is to the role, maybe the role is more or less who he is, or perhaps he has an entirely different side to him that he will not cast before us “swine.” I tend to think the latter, but I could be wrong.

[Chap]

On the one hand, I have all the sympathy in the world for a guy like Christopher Hitchens and his gripes about organized religion, but most of what he says in this regard is so facile and shallow that I find it hard to pay it much mind. The problem with these debates is that, though incredibly important and serious, they are conducted on a level that makes the whole exercise self-defeating.

He is not the final voice on atheism, he was an early voice in popularizing atheism online. I can see why DCP would rather continue fighting him (fecklessly) than take on more nuanced modern arguments that have been made post-Hitchens.

The number of advocates for religious belief in the sphere of popular middle-brow writing is so overwhelming large that I am quite happy to see at least one atheist who has been willing to engage at that level. There are plenty of atheists operating at a more refined level, but it is good to have someone in there basically telling people in simple and compelling terms how ridiculous and harmful a lot of religious belief actually is.

[Rivendale]

I agree. Many atheists won't engage in theistic arguments because they feel it gives credence to their claims. Gemli has refined his conversations eliminating the many rabbit holes theists want to go down. For example, "all the evidence presented is just stories, or stories of stories". "Oh Boo Hiss, he refuses to look at evidence!", echo's throughout the chambers of Sic et Non.

[drumdude]

It's debatable whether the term supernatural really applies to the faith of the Latter-day Saints. You don't care, of course. It might involve learning something about what we believe, and that's something that you consider beneath you.

Checkmate, Atheists! Mormons never believed in any supernatural nonsense!

[drumdude]

gemli: "It's not for me to provide evidence for the absence of beings and events that you claim exist. No one can do such a thing. It's up to those who make claims of something's existence to demonstrate that existence."

But your position isn't merely that certain beings haven't been proven to exist or that certain events haven't been proven to have occurred.

Your claim is that these beings absolutely don't exist and that these events absolutely didn't happen.

That becomes a positive assertion, and the burden of proof then falls on you. You can't definitively assert as a positively proven fact that not-x and then, at the same time, declare that not-x can't be proven. Not, anyway, if you value logic and rationality. Do you? Really?

Double checkmate! Burden of proof moved on to the dogmatic atheists! Dan is on fire!

[drumdude]

gemli: "I only believe in things that can be demonstrated to exist."

You don't merely declare your lack of belief. You declare your absolute certainty that there is no God, that there are no angels, that there is no life after death, and so forth. Although you demand evidence, you regularly and routinely go far beyond the evidence.

And Peterson hits the home run with the tri-fecta: "You atheists are just as deep in the swamp of unjustified belief as I am!"

To quote a great movie:

I am but a shadowy reflection of you. It would take only a nudge to make you like me. To push you out of the light.

Indiana: Now you're getting nasty

[Alphus and Omegus]

It's debatable whether the term supernatural really applies to the faith of the Latter-day Saints. You don't care, of course. It might involve learning something about what we believe, and that's something that you consider beneath you.

Checkmate, Atheists! Mormons never believed in any supernatural nonsense!

This seems to be an implication that the Mormon god (whom they believe is actually named "Elohim," which is a plural noun, not a singular name*) is just an advanced alien, so therefore believing in him is not the same as believing in an invisible, omnipresent, and noncorporeal Christian god.

At the same time, however, Mopologists get very upset when evangelicals say Mormons are not really Christians. Which is it? Do Mormons believe in the Nicene Creed's uncreated god or a progressed alien?

*This error is one of the most absurd doctrines of Mormonism that is prima facie proof of its falsehood, just like D&C 95:17, the source of my board name, does.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

*This error is one of the most absurd doctrines of Mormonism that is prima facie proof of its falsehood, just like D&C 95:17, the source of my board name, does.

Ahman, and ahman, Alphus. ::praying emoji::