Faithful TBM to doubter in 6 hours on ex-Mormon Reddit

[KevinSim]

I'm not saying I agree with the argument. But if I try my bestest to understand what KevinSim is talking about, that's what I get.

Very good summary, Res Ipsa! This is very close to what I was trying to say. I would just add that I never meant to say anything about wealth. I brought up wealth simply because I was talking about pyramid schemes. Just as literal pyramid schemes build up a few people's wealth and screw the unfortunate people at the end of the pyramid, so also society takes care of the personal health needs of its senior citizens, and the last generation gets screwed because there's nobody to help them with their personal health needs.

[doubtingthomas]

Fence Sitter, why would anyone want to preserve Barbie and Ken dolls forever? And how do you conclude that in order for that to happen, Santa Claus must exist? I don't see any connection between Santa Claus and preservation, forever, of Barbie dolls.

It's still a good idea to preserve Barbie dolls in case you get lonely. You know, human needs.

[Meadowchik]

Meadowchik, your objection seems to have at its base the meaning of the word "God." What does God mean to you? I may be wrong, but I think the two of us are looking at that word a different way.

No, I don't think so. I'm keeping in mind what you said in your thesis about God knowing how to preserve humanity.

I don't think such a God is likely, but even if one is, I don't think reliance on the belief in God is going to help.

[huckelberry]

Kevin , what sort of thing did you have in mind that people could do to produce God?

After all neither need nor moral obligation is a method of production.

//////
To lose the advantage of simplicity lets consider an analogy. After the Titanic hit ice people all had a moral obligation to save the ship and all the people on board who were to drown. However great that moral obligation is and it is certainly as great as our obligation to the last human generation, it did not produce a method to stop the water. The water came in, the ship broke up and went to the bottom of the sea. People drowned.

I think the idea of people producing a god is absurd. It is also absurd to expect finite creatures to create a life continuing forever. The only possiblity for humans to be preserved forever is the action of an eternal creator God.

[KevinSim]

The other fly in the Kevin’s ointment, is that he’s chosen to follow a God/religion that believes in the end of days. A God that requires earthly humanity to have a finite end so that the next lives can be assigned to one of a number of eternal kingdoms (which in itself is a pyramid). The doctrine of his chosen religion doesn’t support his position of earthly humanity continuing forever.

IHAQ, I don't believe I've ever said my goal was the preservation, forever, of earthly humanity. Just the preservation, forever, of humanity.

Plus you need to take into consideration that for every “good thing” there are consequences - for instance one cannot preserve the good of families without also preserving in-family rivalries etc.

I'm not sure that's a hard fact.

[IHAQ]

The other fly in the Kevin’s ointment, is that he’s chosen to follow a God/religion that believes in the end of days. A God that requires earthly humanity to have a finite end so that the next lives can be assigned to one of a number of eternal kingdoms (which in itself is a pyramid). The doctrine of his chosen religion doesn’t support his position of earthly humanity continuing forever.

IHAQ, I don't believe I've ever said my goal was the preservation, forever, of earthly humanity. Just the preservation, forever, of humanity.

Well now you need to explain what you mean by “humanity” and which bits of earthly humanity aren’t included.

Plus you need to take into consideration that for every “good thing” there are consequences - for instance one cannot preserve the good of families without also preserving in-family rivalries etc.

I'm not sure that's a hard fact.

Can you think of a good thing that doesn’t also come with a consequence?

[Res Ipsa]

I'm not saying I agree with the argument. But if I try my bestest to understand what KevinSim is talking about, that's what I get.

Very good summary, Res Ipsa! This is very close to what I was trying to say. I would just add that I never meant to say anything about wealth. I brought up wealth simply because I was talking about pyramid schemes. Just as literal pyramid schemes build up a few people's wealth and screw the unfortunate people at the end of the pyramid, so also society takes care of the personal health needs of its senior citizens, and the last generation gets screwed because there's nobody to help them with their personal health needs.

Got it. Thanks.

[KevinSim]

I don't know, as I've had little success in coaxing him to fill in some of the blanks.

Sorry about that, Res Ipsa. What are some of the blanks you wanted me to fill in?

And, yes, I suspect you and I could spend hours deconstructing concepts like "good thing." That's an important counterargument you'd flagged.

As I've said before, if you and I (and the vast majority of people who post on this forum) didn't think open and honest discussion was a good thing, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now. We're not all trolls. Sure there's disagreement over whether some things are or are not good. That doesn't mean there always will be. For example, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that a sexually active gay couple raising children is a very bad thing. But that's legal in the United States right now; couples made up of gay men or lesbians are raising children in larger and larger numbers. Either that's going to result in disaster or it's going to work out pretty good (or, I guess, several places in between). If it works out pretty good I fully expect the LDS Church to admit it. And even if it doesn't, a majority of the population of the United States is going to conclude that in general same-sex parents raising children is a good thing. So just because there's controversy over it now doesn't mean that there will always be controversy over it.

[KevinSim]

The actual question is why do you continue pretending you don't know yourself MG?

Philo Sofee, I am not MG. MG himself posted an article a few posts back where he declared he is not me. What would it take to convince you that I am not him?
I'm tempted to make a post declaring that IHAQ is actually Fence Sitter, so all you people can know what it feels like!

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don't know, as I've had little success in coaxing him to fill in some of the blanks.

Sorry about that, Res Ipsa. What are some of the blanks you wanted me to fill in?

And, yes, I suspect you and I could spend hours deconstructing concepts like "good thing." That's an important counterargument you'd flagged.

As I've said before, if you and I (and the vast majority of people who post on this forum) didn't think open and honest discussion was a good thing, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now. We're not all trolls. Sure there's disagreement over whether some things are or are not good. That doesn't mean there always will be. For example, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that a sexually active gay couple raising children is a very bad thing. But that's legal in the United States right now; couples made up of gay men or lesbians are raising children in larger and larger numbers. Either that's going to result in disaster or it's going to work out pretty good (or, I guess, several places in between). If it works out pretty good I fully expect the LDS Church to admit it. And even if it doesn't, a majority of the population of the United States is going to conclude that in general same-sex parents raising children is a good thing. So just because there's controversy over it now doesn't mean that there will always be controversy over it.

So, thanks for explaining why the Mormon church is superfluous to this world?

- Doc