JustMe's motto--is it legitimate?

[_Jersey Girl]

You know, GoodK, I'm just going to say this and get it over with. Some of us have "known" eachother online for years. For example, I've known Ray A and marg for perhaps 9 years. There are people we've encountered whom we enjoy batting ideas around with and still do. For me, Kerry is one of those people and I'll tell you why.

He isn't part of the common herd.

Others, such as harmony, Ray A, Jason Bourne, truthdancer are also not part of the herd mentality that we regularly see on boards like these. Nor is my fairly new "find" in terms of message board encounters, Liz.

When these people are on a thread, the thread is productive. They almost always have. Ray, for example, is one of the most effective and succint writers that I've ever seen online.

Believe it or not, some of us aren't interested in pathological conflict habituated conspiracy theories or middle school slam fests that come out of the keyboards of certain posters on this board.

Kerry is far more well read than the majority of posters on this board, he is a thinker whose conclusions I don't always agree with, however, the fact that he thinks is one of value to me. He has an online personality that is just extremely fun to encounter and intelligent.

Here's an idea. When you see him posting, how about you engage his posts and ideas instead of "laughing your damned ass off" at his mere presence.

He posted on the original MDB, on this version of MDB, and has recently resumed posting. I, for one, who am tired of reading a constant output of vitriol and pathologically weird hate and gossip mongering around here, am glad to see him posting.

If that's not agreeable to you, by all means, let's start a thread where the middle schoolers can discuss his hats.

[_Jersey Girl]

Why in tears, GoodK? I don't get it.

Well, I'm in tears because it is hilarious.

He is hilarious.

I swear, Mopologetics deserves a sitcom.

ETA:

Shades, you are correct. The quote in question is absurd.

How would you know? I see nowhere on this board where you have engaged his apologetics beyond criticizing his wardrobe.

The quote in question isn't at all absurd when taken in context. Had Shades bothered to include the context of the remarks, you would see that Shades attempt at analogy is absurd.

[_JustMe]

Jersey Girl

let's start a thread where the middle schoolers can discuss his hats.

Now that could end up having some substance! LOL!

By the way, your post was very nice. VERY nice for all of us you mentioned, and I have noticed, though I also disagree with those you named, I have always enjoyed wrangling with em and sharing ideas, as I do with you also. Thanks, yer a gem. A real big valuable gem!

[_Wheat]

Jersey Girl has quasi-immortalized a statement by JustMe in her signature line. It goes like this:

"I don't lose faith in what I know, because of what I don't know." - JustMe 9-20-08

Now, is that particular motto of JustMe's legitimate? For example:

Back in Columbus's time people "knew" that the earth was flat. Some time later, Ferdinand Magellan (or, more accurately, part of his crew) circumnavigated the earth.

Now, people could say they "don't know" how Magellan sailed off in one direction and came back to his point of origin. But did they lose faith in what they did know--that the earth was flat--because of what they didn't know?

Yes, as a matter of fact, they did. They, uh, changed their paradigm to incorporate the new knowlege, even though they didn't know how to mesh it with their former knowledge.

So, is JustMe's motto--"I don't lose faith in what I know, because of what I don't know"--a legitimate way to arrive at truth? Or is it merely a cover story to avoid assimilating new things that he does know, but can't force into his old paradigm?

(For example, JustMe may not know how a just and loving god could command Joseph Smith to take teenage brides behind his wife's back, but he does indeed know that Joseph took them. Why not just incorporate the raw data and draw the obvious conclusions?)

.

It is a myth, though an often repeated one, that people (especially Christians, of course) believed that the earth was flat during the post-Roman era and continuing until the age of discovery. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology

I’m not surprised that Dr. Shades __and probably many others here__ still adhere to that myth. I’ve noticed many other myths that are popular here, like the notions that Mormons believe in infallible prophets, that orthodoxy consisted of a hemispheric view of Book of Mormon geography until just recently, and that LDS are obliged to obey their leaders unquestioningly.

I have observed that apostates simply love to ridicule the silliness and anti-intellectualism of believing LDS. It’s probably their favorite pasttime.

[_Jersey Girl]

Now that could end up having some substance! LOL!

By the way, your post was very nice. VERY nice for all of us you mentioned, and I have noticed, though I also disagree with those you named, I have always enjoyed wrangling with em and sharing ideas, as I do with you also. Thanks, yer a gem. A real big valuable gem!

OMG! I had no idea you were online, Kerry! See, there I am defending you again.

The thing is, that I think those I named can easily disagree and have disagreed with eachother over the years without becoming vindictive and ugly about it.

I'd like to think that those I named (and perhaps others I forgot to include) are among the more secure posters on a board like this. I just love all of you guys.

And you, my friend, are just plain fun to engage. I was so glad to see you posting, your personality lights up this board that previously has been filled with so much malicious darkness.

You are light.
:-)

[_GoodK]

Here's an idea. When you see him posting, how about you engage his posts and ideas instead of "laughing your f*****g ass off" at his mere presence.

I too, will be brief.

Here's an idea, why don't you continue to add people to your ignore list instead of consistently degrading the board you are posting on?

I for one, am not impressed with Brother Shirts.

I don't know why you think Brother Shirts is "far more (note the underline) well read" than the majority of posters here (note the degradation of other posters here).

Have you compared his reading lists with those of others?
Is it his brilliant postings here, or perhaps the YouTube documentaries that Errol Morris would be jealous of? (heh... EA)

I'll lay it out for you:

Kerry Shirts is an uncouth tool. An abrasive and foolish bumpkin.

That is what I think about him, and I couldn't care any less if you found that to be agreeable or if you find him to be agreeable.

While I've stopped laughing my damned ass off, for now, I'll be waiting impatiently for his next post.

[_JustMe]

Wheat

I have observed that apostates simply love to ridicule the silliness and anti-intellectualism of believing LDS. It’s probably their favorite pasttime.

I would correct that to the supposed anti-intellectualism of the LDS. I for one, proclaim it rather loudly that I view the scriptures as one of the premiere paradigms of intellectual stimulation and puzzles to solve. That's the reason I am getting back to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the scriptures. By engaging the intellect, the spirit is fed. Yes you can quote that last line of mine. By engaging the intellect, the Spirit is fed. Intellect and spirit are not dichotomies, but rather partners in learning.

As far as it being the anti's favorite pastimes, the reason is obvious. It's the only thing they know, because it's the only thing they are interested in, that is, tearing down and destroying. Interestingly, that is precisely the role of Satan in the ancient Hebraic thought....... he never creates or builds up. His only goal is to destroy and tear down.

[_gramps]

Well, we are all waiting to see his great apologetics in action.

He has made some pretty embarrassing remarks since he has been here.

And Beastie backed him up to a wall rather quickly on Book of Mormon stuff.

So, what is he good at? He says he likes the Ostler book, but hasn't said anything about it much.

I am sure he is a nice guy though. At least, he comes across that way in his super videos!

Oh, and he gave us a preview of the future of Mormon apologetics by introducing us to the young 18-year old high school student, Brother Smoot. (Secret: the guy has demolished all the critics' arguments to the Book of Abraham problems!) Bright future ahead, indeed, for Mormon apologetics!

[_Some Schmo]

My reaction to this line was similar to yours, Shades. Here's what I said in the thread it was mentioned:

If you know something, for what is faith required?

And if you admit there are things about certain subjects that you don't know, then you don't really know about them, do you?

And is it really all that intelligent to believe in something based on incomplete information? It may be comforting, but it certainly isn't very bright.

Again, we see that faith is a foolish pursuit, unless you value comfort over reality.

Jersey Girl came on and explained why she thought it was valuable, and from the perspective of a god believer, I understood what she was saying, but still felt the idea was wanting. I said:

So it turns out this really is just a difference in terminology. I mean, much of what you said applies to me (aside from the god stuff) with respect to what I know and don't know. I just wouldn't use the word faith in any of that to describe how I handle the gaps in my knowledge. It's just too irrational for me. I recognize my ignorance and let go of the fact that ignorance is an inevitable fact of everyone's life. I don’t know everything. Nobody does (as much as some pretend to). Big deal, right? That's been my experience. It's based on evidence. No faith is required.

If anything, I believe this way of thinking makes a person more open to revising and making distinctions about the things they think they already do know, because they don't put some imaginary restraint on their "knowledge", claiming they need “faith” in it. Having faith sounds like close-mindedness to me, and motivated by simple comfort.

There's little doubt that "knowledge" is illusory and fleeting. Holding on to what you think you know can lead to the heights of arrogance (as we regularly see on this board, for instance), especially observable when someone is so wacky and "out there."

I fail to see the benefit or any place for "faith" in this equation. All I see is potential for unnecessary embarrassment.

Jersey Girl re-emphasized that she was referring to god belief, and I responded with:

Actually, I was thinking more generally about the thoughts on faith themselves rather than Kerry's specific views. I believe it's a given that if one is to believe in a god, faith is required (those who say they "know" there's a god would be a good example of those I consider "wacky and out there").

I really just think that some people say faith when what they really mean is trust, or a belief in the strictly unknowable based on repetitive past experience (eg. if I drive my car, I trust I’ll survive because people generally keep to their side of the road. I don’t know they will, but I trust they will).

To me, faith (in what I consider to be the true sense of the word) is belief for reasons that have little to do with past direct experience, or misinterpretation of their experience. In other words, faith is irrational, and is highly (dangerously, even) over-valued. And the only way to explain why people think it is valuable is that it offers them comfort, much like a placebo. As I get older, I become less critical of that position, unless it's coupled with arrogance.

I simply don't understand why people would apply a different standard of critical thinking to the idea of god as they would everything else. It doesn't make any sense at all.

[_GoodK]

How would you know? I see nowhere on this board where you have engaged his apologetics beyond criticizing his wardrobe.

The quote in question isn't at all absurd when taken in context. Had Shades bothered to include the context of the remarks, you would see that Shades attempt at analogy is absurd.

First of all, you mispoke Jersey Girl.

Please correct yourself.

I have never commented on his "wardrobe" before.

Furthermore, I don't need to have entertained Mr. Shirt's foolishness in order to recognize an absurd statement when I see one.

I didn't even know he was JustMe until you enlightened me.