For former Mormons who became atheists

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Probably Saudi Arabia... Oil money helps. :)

VRDRC

[_subgenius]

Maturity means, among other things, a capacity for tolerating ideas,

arbitrary definition...do i get to make up what words mean to suit my argument as well?

[a capacity] which at its best is part of social maturity. A mature social system allows freedom of ideas and the free expression of them.

How is this a sign of maturity? It seems that you are assigning a value to something without cause, other than to suit yourself.
Though i appreciate those freedoms i have yet to see you justify their value in terms of society...or in terms as some sort alleged "progression" that you seemingly are hinting at.
You attempted to equate the flourish of atheism with progress/maturity...but your method thus far easily allows one to simply state that this "flourish" is actually an indication of regression.

If this is idea puts you out then I'd recommend some introspection on the matter.

The irony of you asking me to pray about it....will i receive a burning n my bosom?
Is introspection one of these 'processes" that you mentioned before...you know the one's that we are, how you said - "ultimately alone" with?
So, why would you ask me to be introspective...are you assuming some objective universal truth would be revealed?

No. I didn't use magic. I simply thought about it. I also presented "tangible terms" when I said, "As our society matures, and becomes more and more sophisticated the rejection of God-belief is increasing. I believe easily accessible knowledge, mass education, and the mass communication of ideas are facilitating this phenomenon. Typically in the more restrictive societies, to include the undereducated, do you see Theism flourish unabated."

fundamental error is that you are confusing correlation with causation....an error you still have not resolved.
Through recorded history the majority of innovation, progress, and expansion of knowledge and science has been from men and women known to be "Theistic".....your conclusion is invalid.

No. This might help you with the concept:

http://community-roundtable.com/wp-cont ... ighRes.jpg

interesting but hardly anything more than speculative...and in no is convincing for whatever argument you are trying to make.
i do like this quote from that webbsite about the graphic:
"This model does two things. First, it defines the eight competencies we think are required for successful community management. Second, it attempts – at a high level – to articulate how these competencies progress from organizations without community management that are still highly hierarchical to those that have embraced a networked business ecosystem approach to their entire organization." (emphasis mine)

additionally, community management sounds a little contrary to the "freedom" you mentioned before

I believe people, within a mature society, have a greater chance at achieving what you're describing. Within the constrictions of an immature society it's unlikely many will or can do the same.

ok, so "i believe" different......."i believe" you are simply speculating and have no real basis for what you are proposing......
now what?

I have no idea what you just wrote means.

it means that Your ethical "system" is ad hoc and singular to yourself.
and so it is futile and absurd for you to "share" it (as you have stated before)
thus ultimately what one can conclude about your system's "success" is in my next response.

I have no idea what you just wrote means.

it means that Justice is might.

[_subgenius]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jbkSRLYSojo#!

does not take a college degree to know that having a college degree does not necessarily mean a person is smarter than a person without a college degree....perhaps that explains that graphic more than anything

[_LittleNipper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jbkSRLYSojo#!

does not take a college degree to know that having a college degree does not necessarily mean a person is smarter than a person without a college degree....perhaps that explains that graphic more than anything

What this fails to present is if the more educated people are the voters in the majority of those states or in the minority. In other words, even though there are more "educated " people in a state, it doesn't mean that the more educated people voted or even supported either candidate. One state could have 100 educated people and 75 uneducated people, but if only 50 of the educated people vote, and 30 of the uneducated people vote, and 35 of the educated people voted for Romney and yet 29 of the uneducated voted for Obama, Then Obama wins the majority, but not among the educated voters. I addition, if people voted for Obama because they want sanctioned Gay marriage, free Abortions, unlimited food stamps and free public housing, or even (dare I say it) because one candidate is of a particular race ---- those are not very educated reasons for voting a particular way. In fact, they demonstrate selfish motivated patterns that seem to be more the mark of an "uneducated" individual.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, I think it simply stands on its own merit. The more highly educated a body politic is the more they tend to swing (heh) Liberal. Additionally, I'd bet those states have higher rates of Atheism vice the lesser educated states.

- VRDRC

[_Themis]

Well, I think it simply stands on its own merit. The more highly educated a body politic is the more they tend to swing (heh) Liberal. Additionally, I'd bet those states have higher rates of Atheism vice the lesser educated states.

- VRDRC

I notice they both had to make strawman's here.

[_subgenius]

Well, I think it simply stands on its own merit. The more highly educated a body politic is the more they tend to swing (heh) Liberal. Additionally, I'd bet those states have higher rates of Atheism vice the lesser educated states.

- VRDRC

again...correlation and causation escapes your posts...and now it is obvious that your posts have no interest in basic reasoning or logic.

So according to the math of your posts:
Stalin was the most educated and most liberal fellow in Russia,
and Mao Zedong was the most educated and most liberal fellow in China.....got it!

Your early post claimed that you are an atheist/humanist...but your subsequent postings have been nothing more than New Age drivel often heard falling between the lips of a hippie and a bong whilst the Grateful Dead plays Deep Elem Blues in the background.

[Guest]

...

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, I think it simply stands on its own merit. The more highly educated a body politic is the more they tend to swing (heh) Liberal. Additionally, I'd bet those states have higher rates of Atheism vice the lesser educated states.

- VRDRC

again...correlation and causation escapes your posts...and now it is obvious that your posts have no interest in basic reasoning or logic.

So according to the math of your posts:
Stalin was the most educated and most liberal fellow in Russia,
and Mao Zedong was the most educated and most liberal fellow in China.....got it!

Your early post claimed that you are an atheist/humanist...but your subsequent postings have been nothing more than New Age drivel often heard falling between the lips of a hippie and a bong whilst the Grateful Dead plays Deep Elem Blues in the background.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Thank you for the intelligent response. Yes this thread is 10 pages deep and I haven't even read the whole thing. I've responded to quite a bit of it though. I do have other things to do with my life.

Thank you for being polite (unlike Mr. Sub-Genius). I'm sorry I haven't responded to your response sooner.

The unresolved fear of death thing. That seems like a logical psychological assessment, if you were looking for a motivating factor behind my experiences. Perhaps you could say my mind created them in response to my fear of death, and what I experience is just some kind of hallucination or psychosis, and that I am the only person who experiences them.

I really like the fact that you're being introspective.

There are a couple problems with this. First, I am not the only one who channels spirits, my girlfriend and I are good examples since both of us channel and have shared experiences that are spiritual/telepathic and are undeniable. So the whole "I'm the only one" argument doesn't work with me, however, from the outside I have no way of proving any of this to a random person on the internet so I can understand the skepticism. I would be skeptical of someone saying the things that I have said. It is logical.

“He discovered the cruel paradox by which we always decieve ourselves, twice about the people we love-first to their advantage, then to their disadvantage.”

Fear of death. I would think we all fear this. I do my best not to. It is a natural instinct to want to live and fear is a survival instinct. Apathy would be worse than fear. I honestly don't know what happens after death so there is perhaps some anticipation of the unknown. I don't think that this relates to my spiritual senses though. Whether there is a fear of death or not, I still see and hear spirits with my third eye, inner ear, and empathy (an energy sense, similar to what Mormons describe as "the Spirit". It is my experiences, aside from the whole philosophical question of "to be or not to be" that are the cause of my theism.

"He realized now that to be afraid of this death he was staring at with animal terror meant to be afraid of life."

Multidimensionality. I am just going on what spirit guides have told me, and visions that I have had on this one. I would love to study the science behind it. My multidimensionality I am talking about can be more easily thought of, in symbolic form, as differing levels of heaven and hell. "Different realities entirely" as my spirits put it. What is heaven to one is hell to another and vice versa. Depends. Hard to describe and I am not really even going to try since it is beyond my comprehension anyway.

I'm not sure what you're attempting to say here. Regardless, we exist in an existential reality that defines us thoroughly. We can pretend there are things that are external that influence us, but that's self-deception. We simply are. And we must accept that in order to know ourselves.

I have had visions of the beginning and the end of time and how all things are actually One thing, and all came from this one source and will return to it, which I define as Love. Love is the energy that is actually what our atoms are constructed of apparently. I have many other mystics that agree with me here too. I'm not a scientists but I don't think science understands this, the fundamental energy that is the source of all existence. I don't think true science would contradict me though.

I have visions, too. It's called an imagination. Regardless, I think you're ascribing Love a characteristic that it isn't. Love is Love. What you're describing is the Grand Unified Theory; and you're right scientists don't understand it, yet. They're getting there, though. :)

It is certainly not easy to show an atheist any kind of spiritual proof. I don't expect to be able to. I just like understanding people who think differently than I do. I think atheists have a tendency to look at theism with disgust and I can understand, since it sucks to be duped by dogma. I was for years as a Mormon. If possible I would like to bring more credibility to theism simply by showing that it is not a cause - effect situation. Specifically, it is not a psychological response to fear of death, but it is based on experiences that can be found in every culture on the planet spanning space and time. Atheists tend to ignore that part.

Well, I believe ex-Mormon Atheists have good reason to look at Theism with disgust. We generally view it as self-deception, outright deception, irrational, and dangerous. What you regard as spirituality we simply regard as feelings that everyone experiences to one degree or another. Some people interpret those feelings as coming from the Divine while others believe them to be internal only. I don't ignore what you feel is legitimate for you, and that you interpret those feelings in a certain manner. I simply reject your premise.

Thanks again for being thoughtful.

V/R
Dr. Cam