Chalk Up Another MAD-Influenced Apostasy

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Did you read (or listen to) DCP's lectures on Islam, at various universities, when he was in Australia? If so, what do you think of them?


Well you might be surprised to know that he and I agree more than we disagree. He even emailed me once and said he thinks we are on the same page most of the time, but that he thinks I go to far sometimes.

I downloaded one of his talks in Australia last year and congratulated him on a job well done. I think I have a thread on my forum talking about this. I criticized him a bit for dodging important questions at the end of his talk. He would let absolutely absurd statements go by unchallenged. One student asked him some questions while providing his own assertions inbetween. He came right out and said Western Civilization is to blame for any Muslim terrorism that exists today. Dan didn't respond to that, and just ignored it while shaking his head in the affirmative as if everything this idiot just said was correct.

Where we disagree is when he tries to ignore what the majority of Islam believes in favor of some fringies who probably can't keep citizenship in their own Muslim homeland because the majority think they are apostate. Whenever someone points out traditional aspects of Islamic Law at MAD, you'll typically see Dan jump out of his skin to say, "That's not in the Quran!"

As if most Muslims care. He is playing to a Christian/Mormon crowd and he knows that we believe something has to be scriptural in order for it to be authoritative. But the same is not true in Islam, and he is never willing to share this important tid-bit of information. Once you realize the authority of the ahadith, his various "that's not in the Quran" apologetic is rendered moot.

And then you have his interpretations of the Quran that do not necessarily bode with the majority of Islamic jurists. But he doesn't tell you that either. He wants you to essentially believe that he knows Islam better than most Muslims do.
Just because it isn't explicit in the Quran doesn't mean it isn't Islam. One of the five pillars of Islam, for example, is not based in the Quran at all. It is based in the ahadith which is where much of the problematic aspects of Islam derive.

Kevin, I started posting on the FAIR board not long before you had broken the camel's back.


DCP being the camel, no doubt.

Your diatribes against Islam were embarrassing. As I recall you were called for confusing extremist Muslims with the religion of Islam.


You recall incorrectly, as you usually do. I was called out for embarrassing the resident expert on his subject of expertise. Can't get any more embarrassing than that, and the mods were going ape-s*** over this trying to figure out what to do with me; a lowly apologist refuting their God of apologetics. Dan could not respond to direct questions so he pitched a fit, attacked me directly, accused me of bigotry, misrepresented what I actually argued and then hid behind the moderators while pretending to be innocent. Every attempt I made to correct Dan's misrepresentation of my arguments, were immediately deleted.

But every once in a while he'll bring up my name, now that he is safe in the knowledge that I cannot post there to challenge his erroneous claims.

I mean just for starters, he supports Brian Hauglid when he says jihad was rarely agressive and "always defensive." The funny thing is that DCP will turn around and recommend Bernard Lewis. Bernard Lewis rejects this claim as complete and utter nonsense. Lewis goes on record in saying it was frequently offensive and almost always aggressive.
Anyway...
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

dartagnan wrote:Where we disagree is when he tries to ignore what the majority of Islam believes in favor of some fringies who probably can't keep citizenship in their own Muslim homeland because the majority think they are apostate. Whenever someone points out traditional aspects of Islamic Law at MAD, you'll typically see Dan jump out of his skin to say, "That's not in the Quran!"


This is where I think you're wrong. How do you know that the "majority" of Muslims believe the "fringies" are right, or even support them? In my experience with many Australian Muslims, almost all think the "fringies" are total kooks. But there's an element of Australians who want to rid Australia of Islam, some of them Christians (nay, many), and they hang on to the extremist statements while ignoring what mainstream Muslims are saying.
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

Kevin, Thanks for replying and proving my claim. You have a hard time speaking of Islam rationally.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Post by _Gadianton »

Honestly, if the church were smart, it would apply the motto "We don't negotiate with terrorists." Failure to do so creates an industry. If I remember right, Jehovah's witnesses aren't allowed to do apologetics and write books and all that, there is a limited amount and very controlled. How many JW's have you seen come and go on boards? Probably one reason why they've become a less fun target than the LDS. I haven't seen one, in all my wasted years. an anti-mormon writes a book. FARMS responds. the anti responds to that. if it were really God's work, why not just shrug your shoulders at the mockers and move on?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

Gadianton wrote: if it were really God's work, why not just shrug your shoulders at the mockers and move on?


Maybe because the critics won't "move on", and some find it "fun" to engage them? I don't believe any TBM (emphasis on "true") will ever lose his/her testimony. They are having fun with you, when you think it's the other way around. Charity probably laughs herself to sleep.
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

Ray A wrote:
Gadianton wrote: if it were really God's work, why not just shrug your shoulders at the mockers and move on?


Maybe because the critics won't "move on", and some find it "fun" to engage them? I don't believe any TBM (emphasis on "true") will ever lose his/her testimony. They are having fun with you, when you think it's the other way around. Charity probably laughs herself to sleep.

That may be, but it would be more like the laughter of the insane, mumbling about and chuckling to themselves about a joke that only they get.

I recall a GA saying, and I will have to paraphrase because I don't recall the exact quote and who said it, something like "A solid defense cannot prove the truth. But no defense can kill testimonies." or something like that. That's why the church doesn't mind the apologetics. The JWs get around the whole problem of critics by simply banning their members from reading critical books, or talking with any apostates, or having anything to do with anyone who has left the church. Problem solved, for the most part. Thankfully the LDS church hasn't gone that far in any official capacity, though you find members who act that way on their own.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Maybe because the critics won't "move on", and some find it "fun" to engage them? I don't believe any TBM (emphasis on "true") will ever lose his/her testimony. They are having fun with you, when you think it's the other way around. Charity probably laughs herself to sleep.


I agree that no True Believer will ever lose his/her testimony. Eric Hoffer explains why:

“So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” (Luther) To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for four years the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes that the cruel misery inside the Soviet promise land.

It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.

Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine: it must be “contrary to nature, to common sense, and to pleasure”.


Charity is a good demonstration of this. On this board, her arguments are so poorly constructed in that she ignores half of what others post and can't construct an overall coherency in her theories that would prevent her from contradicting herself frequently. And you think that her arguments are so excellent she laughs at us? You have remarkably poor judgment.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Infymus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:10 pm

Post by _Infymus »

Mr. Scratch - just as Nehor, Harmony, Gaz and Jason Bourne here have also supplied - the insistence on the fact that the member is to blame will always be the first card played by Mormons.

"Did you pay your tithe? Did you pray? Did you go see your bishop? Did you fast? Do you have any mental health issues?"

It can never be the fault of the Church. They will always point the finger at the member.

It isn't the Church's fault if the member just can't get it.

I've seen this for years, both out and inside the cult. When I was a member and was struggling with the "Plan of Salvation", I was attacked by the Bishop and members for just not getting it. Even here on this very board I was also attacked by Mormons who said again, I just don't get it. If I would just shut up, pay, pray and obey, then I'd get it.

Exactly why the milk before meat euphemism was created, although the whole thing is more a power play now than statement.

I for one am extremely pleased with FARMS/FAIR/MAAD. They have brought more people out of the cult than I could ever hope for. If you are a struggling Mormon and you will NOT accept the milk before meat, then you will be attacked and eventually cut off. The cult doesn't need stragglers. They need paying, praying, obeying members who do not question, do not ask and do not need meat.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

Infymus wrote:They need paying, praying, obeying members who do not question, do not ask and do not need meat.


As harsh as Infymus can be, he has it essentially right in this case.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_AmazingDisgrace
_Emeritus
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 3:01 pm

Post by _AmazingDisgrace »

Sethbag wrote:I recall a GA saying, and I will have to paraphrase because I don't recall the exact quote and who said it, something like "A solid defense cannot prove the truth. But no defense can kill testimonies." or something like that. That's why the church doesn't mind the apologetics. The JWs get around the whole problem of critics by simply banning their members from reading critical books, or talking with any apostates, or having anything to do with anyone who has left the church. Problem solved, for the most part. Thankfully the LDS church hasn't gone that far in any official capacity, though you find members who act that way on their own.


You may be thinking of this Austin Farrer quote, which is on a plaque on the wall at FARMS (or was, the last time I was there)

Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced, but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.
"Every post you can hitch your faith on is a pie in the sky, chock full of lies, a tool we devise to make sinking stones fly"
The Shins - A Comet Appears
Post Reply