Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Kishkumen
High Councilman
Posts: 559
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Kishkumen »

Themis wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:21 pm
To hopefully be more clear, The atheist and theist are on equal grounds as to knowing their own existence and the existence of some kind of God. Both don't know as PG was saying. The advantage is one of them only has to concern themselves with what they think.
Yeah, OK. I appreciate you trying to help me understand. I still don't agree, but that is OK. Some people feel they do have some kind of knowledge of the existence of God. It is the case that atheists generally don't accept that theists do have such a knowledge or experience. Part of the problem is that atheists tend to explain away the things that theists accept as evidence, and they don't know or think much of the philosophical arguments of classical theism.

Anyhow, I think there is equal work to be done by atheists and theists in figuring things out. No one has any breaks that I can see. Taking God out of the equation is only an illusory benefit in terms of lightning the philosophical load.
Perhaps it can, but that is not what we usually see. Like I said earlier, if one only has a belief in a God's existence, and nothing else about this God, it is not any different then a belief in Bigfoot as for what it means for a person.
Not necessarily true, unless both the words Bigfoot and God are just placeholders for nouns and are devoid of any meaning. I know you are coming at this from the position of neither of them existing, and that is why you think this answer works, but it really doesn't, imo.
In this situation one would be in the same situation as the atheist only concerning themselves with what they, or other people, think. It gets more complicated when one concerns themselves with what God might think as for how we live our lives. I imagine the atheist girl that get propositioned by someone like Joseph Smith has an easier time then a theist girl who thinks he speaks for God.
Why do you suppose that a theist girl would necessarily conclude that Joseph Smith does speak for God just because he claims to speak for God? That's a leap I am not willing to take with you.
Esse et facere quam videri
Lem
Prophet
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Lem »

Continuing with your thought:
huckelberry wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:36 pm

There is a remainder in this matter that a believer like myself might notice. The atheist girl really needs to broaden her concern beyond the simple do I want to have sex. Perhaps it is assumed that the moment, I desire, is a result of awareness of broader issues like social responsibility and future as well as the immediate desires.

I feel sure both atheists and theists may be able to make thoughtful and aware decisions taking account of issues beyond biological directives. There are a variety of forms of blindness that both atheists and theist exercise.
Yes, of course. If we are just contrasting atheist and theist, however, if I were to remain a atheist, there would be an added layer of theistic belief that one can never verify, but must simply accept on faith. Only for my atheistic position, obviously, I would argue that an atheist has decided not to use faith in something they cannot verify as a rationale for choices. This would rule out, for example, necessarily believing in angels, or in a self-proclaimed prophet, no matter how much your family insists otherwise.
"choosing to work the job she loved and elevated to the end." -honorentheos
Themis
Star A
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:31 pm

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Themis »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:51 pm
Themis
Like I said earlier, if one only has a belief in a God's existence, and nothing else about this God,
The assumption that there is nothing else about this God is the hang up. Obvious to many folks there is something else about God, or they wouldn't believe it.
Obviously. :)
Just because the atheist doesn't experience something else about God doesn't mean others don't either. Just because an atheist has never done the work to become an astronaut is not proof that no astronauts have experienced space and moon walks and Mars orbital landing science experiencing the emotional, spiritual, and physicals highs such magnificent events give them. The atheist line is not the line from which to draw from in order to judge the rest of the world. Yes, it's very difficult to get some atheists to see this, but their worries are not my problem.
Yet many atheists have done the work. My point is not that the atheist position is the correct one. Only that it is the simpler one when it comes to determining how one lives their life. God may exist and may be interested in how we live our life. Perhaps my use of the word advantage is causing some hangups. And yes some theists may not concern themselves with what God thinks, but I don't see many out there. Sacred scripture is all about concerning ourselves with what God thinks and how we live our life.
Themis
Star A
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:31 pm

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Themis »

huckelberry wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:36 pm
Themis wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:08 pm

The only thing that is easier is just figuring out what you think, not trying to figure out what some unknown being thinks. Kinda like the atheist girl who only has to decide if she wants to have sex with that Guy, where the theist girl has to try and decide if the guy is telling the truth that God wants her to sleep with him.
Themis,
A theist girl thinking this stupidly really needs to become atheist at least long enough to start thinking. I mean really, ugh.

This disablity reminds of some utube I watched where in a fellow explains that Christianity made him say such stupid things. The list of dumb stuff was impressive and I do not doubt that somewhere the fellow had found encouragement to think these stupid things. Still despite some social support the individual does bare some responsibility to think and make an honest effort to avoid ,making stupid statements.

There is a remainder in this matter that a believer like myself might notice. The atheist girl really needs to broaden her concern beyond the simple do I want to have sex. Perhaps it is assumed that the moment, I desire, is a result of awareness of broader issues like social responsibility and future as well as the immediate desires.

I feel sure both atheists and theists may be able to make thoughtful and aware decisions taking account of issues beyond biological directives. There are a variety of forms of blindness that both atheists and theist exercise.
The example is of course based on real events, and not just from Joseph Smith. I assume most theist girls would not agree to have sex, and I also don't assume all atheist girls are just concerning themselves with do I want sex. Most have moral codes that don't just revolve around will it be fun or not. Things like being married may influence not to because it breaks their personal moral code.
Themis
Star A
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:31 pm

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Themis »

Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:16 pm
Yeah, OK. I appreciate you trying to help me understand. I still don't agree, but that is OK. Some people feel they do have some kind of knowledge of the existence of God. It is the case that atheists generally don't accept that theists do have such a knowledge or experience. Part of the problem is that atheists tend to explain away the things that theists accept as evidence, and they don't know or think much of the philosophical arguments of classical theism.
Many of those arguments don't work unless God exists as defined by a theist making the argument.
Anyhow, I think there is equal work to be done by atheists and theists in figuring things out. No one has any breaks that I can see. Taking God out of the equation is only an illusory benefit in terms of lightning the philosophical load.
It's just simpler for the atheist who doesn't concern what any God may think, but theists are influenced by these concerns all the time. The bible makes all kinds of claims about what God thinks about how we live our lives that are heavily influencing biblical philosophers.
Not necessarily true, unless both the words Bigfoot and God are just placeholders for nouns and are devoid of any meaning. I know you are coming at this from the position of neither of them existing, and that is why you think this answer works, but it really doesn't, imo.
Don't take the example further then intended. Almost no theist's believe in god's existence only, and if they did, it would make no difference in how they decide they should live whether they believe God exists or Bigfoot exists.
Why do you suppose that a theist girl would necessarily conclude that Joseph Smith does speak for God just because he claims to speak for God? That's a leap I am not willing to take with you.
I never intended that most theists would. Only some who were already followers of Joseph did, as you already know. I suspect he was somewhat careful to pick those more likely to believe such non-sense. It's not that uncommon for religious leaders to tell some follower God wants them to sleep together.
huckelberry
CTR A
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by huckelberry »

Lem wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:32 pm
Continuing with your thought:
huckelberry wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:36 pm

There is a remainder in this matter that a believer like myself might notice. The atheist girl really needs to broaden her concern beyond the simple do I want to have sex. Perhaps it is assumed that the moment, I desire, is a result of awareness of broader issues like social responsibility and future as well as the immediate desires.

I feel sure both atheists and theists may be able to make thoughtful and aware decisions taking account of issues beyond biological directives. There are a variety of forms of blindness that both atheists and theist exercise.
Yes, of course. If we are just contrasting atheist and theist, however, if I were to remain a atheist, there would be an added layer of theistic belief that one can never verify, but must simply accept on faith. Only for my atheistic position, obviously, I would argue that an atheist has decided not to use faith in something they cannot verify as a rationale for choices. This would rule out, for example, necessarily believing in angels, or in a self-proclaimed prophet, no matter how much your family insists otherwise.
Lem,
Using faith in something I cannot verify as a rationale for choice strikes me as seriously problematic something to be avoided. Despite being a Christian believer the past forty years I believe my choices are based upon as clear a knowledge as I cannot access. I am thinking of knowledge of the natural facts that surround me not unknowns like angels who do not have much of anything to do with what choices I must make.

I could say that because I am a believer I think I should seek to be free from the control of social expectations and assumptions in making decisions based upon facts I can see and understand most clearly. I believe that is a basic assignment from God. It is also the internal assignment we all sense in ourselves without any religious rules. That should be expected as God is our creator, author of that internal sense we have of opportunity possibilities creations and responsibilities.(God is this by definition a strongman who is other than this is no God and has not right to Gods honor)

Speaking of strong men manipulating people, I think I have a little understanding of what you describe for women in LDS culture. I find myself considering that cultures can enforce such limiting roles without a particular God belief. A relatively uniform and exclusive culture is going to magnify to social limiting roles. Part of the problem is culture always has some shaping role to that inner sense of possibility and responsibility I mentioned as established within us by God. Ambitious individuals may find that their social power may be used to manipulate people's sense of that inner hope. The obvious examples are men with some power using that position for sexual favors. Politicians, wealthy individuals, music or sports stars all have lots of opportunities . Some religious leaders do as well. In a way these manipulators can be seen as false minigods using that fact that our connection to God is incomplete and sometimes broken.(God meaning here the foundation of our best potential whether personal as in Christianity or beyond or simply not personal as in nontheist )

I have long hoped that religious observance can be a resistance to the claims of false demigods and prophets. I realize that is not a onesided matter. I think people feel a need for some more tangible authority figure. People have an active desire for power leaders. Politics or religion may be platforms for the power figures that people can have a lust for. My person religiour belief system has taken a severe shock from the rise of Trump idolitry. I might be able to just reflect that like a certain goldn calf affair the United States is not yet entering any promised land
Lem
Prophet
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Lem »

Thank you for your response, that was the most beautifully written personal statement I've read in a while. Your understanding comments about women in lds culture and culture in general are very interesting. I have struggled with the lds version of that and have paid a severe personal price for stepping away from those family-generated lds expectations that I consider inappropriate. My main consolation is that I have done my best to stop the limiting aspects of that mindset from going on to the next generation.

Also, I have always respected your position as a believer because you have always been non-judgmental and willing to discuss things, but I truly appreciate the non-divisive nature of your comments here, you don't often see that in theism v. atheism threads!

This in particular I think I will copy and send to my (one atheist and one theist) kids, if you don't mind. They are both currently into reading philosophy, and I think they will really like the way you say this.
huckelberry wrote:
Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:51 pm

....Using faith in something I cannot verify as a rationale for choice strikes me as seriously problematic something to be avoided. Despite being a Christian believer the past forty years I believe my choices are based upon as clear a knowledge as I can access. I am thinking of knowledge of the natural facts that surround me not unknowns like angels who do not have much of anything to do with what choices I must make.

I could say that because I am a believer I think

I should seek to be free from the control of social expectations and assumptions in making decisions based upon facts I can see and understand most clearly.


I believe that is a basic assignment from God.

It is also the internal assignment we all sense in ourselves

without any religious rules. That should be expected as God is our creator, author of that internal sense we have of opportunity possibilities creations and responsibilities.
That bolded part I think all will agree with, the rest is simply respect for each other's personal position on where it comes from.

(Although I must say I really chuckled over the angel part. Well said. You are an admirably practical believer!)
"choosing to work the job she loved and elevated to the end." -honorentheos
huckelberry
CTR A
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by huckelberry »

Lem, thankyou for your kind word. If some comment sounds useful to forward you are welcome to .
User avatar
Kishkumen
High Councilman
Posts: 559
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by Kishkumen »

Themis wrote:
Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:48 pm
Don't take the example further then intended. Almost no theist's believe in god's existence only, and if they did, it would make no difference in how they decide they should live whether they believe God exists or Bigfoot exists.
I think where I part with you on this is your use of the words thought and think. To the infinite mind of God, according to classical theism, those words could only be used in a metaphorical sense. Human beings could not possibly know the thoughts of a being like that, and so one wonders what the point would be of worrying about them.

Furthermore, I am not really interested in pursuing an ad populum fallacy, in that what most people think is not a concern for me. Most people are idiots (in the narrow sense of not really having a concern for or a handle on larger issues). One of the things I find interesting about our current religio-philosophical discussions, as far as they go--and that is not very far, it that they sound a lot like consumer conversations about products. Most people buy this, this is why they prefer this, and they don't select this . . . vel sim.

Why should it matter to any of us that most people think one thing or another? Why does this even figure into this discussion? In my view, it doesn't, and I don't care about it. What matters for practical purposes for the majority of people is of no concern to me.
I never intended that most theists would. Only some who were already followers of Joseph did, as you already know. I suspect he was somewhat careful to pick those more likely to believe such non-sense. It's not that uncommon for religious leaders to tell some follower God wants them to sleep together.
It's also not uncommon for people in general to engage in sexual activity, including illicit sexual activity, for all kinds of reasons. Whether they choose to involve their God ideas in it or not, it looks like people are going to engage in sex. Take for example, the village atheist hero Richard Carrier. He declared himself to be polyamorous and decided to harass young women at Skeptics events. I note that he denies these allegations. Still, I think you will find that there are many people who do this kind of thing, regardless of their religious views or lack of such.
Esse et facere quam videri
cinepro
Sunbeam
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2020 6:34 am

Re: Another Mopologist Bites The Dust, Bryce Haymond Edition

Post by cinepro »

Interestingly, it looks like he's taken to "retranslating" scriptural passages...

https://www.thymindoman.com/an-introduc ... ation-bht/
Post Reply