Why I think Thomas Riskas Is A Joke

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Regardless, how important is it to destroy Mr. Riskas' reputation, and why? Why start a thread on this man? Why is it that Mr. Stak, who is a non-Mormon, who feels the need to debunk an ex-Mormon's book? What's the underlying motivation other than some vague, overly nuanced "philosophical" angle?

It's odd.

Reasons this is different from exactly what TBM's say about questioning the truth claims of the LDS Church:

1.

I'm not sure I follow. Would you mind fleshing that out a little?

To be honest I didn't know who Mr. Riskas was before this thread was started, and quite frankly I still don't. I just don't care enough about his book to Google him.

That said, I do know who Mr. Stak is because he posts on this forum. I'm genuinely curious what the motivation for him was to start a thread on RFM to debunk Mr. Riskas' position, and then point it out here. I see him do this once in a while, where he'll take a nuanced position, at times seemingly at odds with his purported non-belief, simply because it doesn't make "philosophical" sense to him.

- Doc

[_Darth J]

. I see him do this once in a while, where he'll take a nuanced position, at times seemingly at odds with his purported non-belief, simply because it doesn't make "philosophical" sense to him.

Does Mormonism make philosophical sense to you? Do you sometimes state your thoughts about that on this board?

Your statement that Stak's criticism of Riskas is at odds with Stak's atheism is no different than the MD&D crowd insisting that disagreeing with FAIR's apologetic theories makes one an anti-Mormon. How is arguing that a particular critique of an idea is invalid equivalent to arguing for the underlying idea? Is meta-criticism the functional equivalent of a testimonial?

Poster A joins a message board and explains how biblical creationism is a historical fact. Poster B comes along and says that's wrong; that space aliens in advanced starships seeded the Earth with DNA, not the Abrahamic god.

If I dispute Poster B's assertion, am I therefore agreeing with Poster A?

[_suniluni2]

At some point you should just publish something, do a blog post or something like that, and then maybe link to it. An OP of that length on a discussion board is just ridiculous.

Ridiculous to suniluni2, perhaps. But not to others. Certainly not to me. So, we cancel each other out, and Stak should continue.

And you can disregard the thread. There are plenty of other threads to participate in if you so choose. Right?

Right. Just a suggestion, nothing more, nothing less. You can disregard my post too, right?

[_Darth J]

I have not read Riskas' work. However, my initial impression is that if you think you have to publish a tome heavy enough to be used in hand-to-hand combat to explain why Joe's Frontier Tall Tales are ridiculous, there is a non-zero chance that you're trying too hard.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

. I see him do this once in a while, where he'll take a nuanced position, at times seemingly at odds with his purported non-belief, simply because it doesn't make "philosophical" sense to him.

Does Mormonism make philosophical sense to you? Do you sometimes state your thoughts about that on this board?

Your statement that Stak's criticism of Riskas is at odds with Stak's atheism is no different than the MD&D crowd insisting that disagreeing with FAIR's apologetic theories makes one an anti-Mormon. How is arguing that a particular critique of an idea is invalid equivalent to arguing for the underlying idea? Is meta-criticism the functional equivalent of a testimonial?

Poster A joins a message board and explains how biblical creationism is a historical fact. Poster B comes along and says that's wrong; that space aliens in advanced starships seeded the Earth with DNA, not the Abrahamic god.

If I dispute Poster B's assertion, am I therefore agreeing with Poster A?

You make a good point. Let me explain myself, because I wasn't clear.

I guess where I'm curious is, for example, I have strong feelings on Christianity and Islam as fascist ideologies. I don't, however, join their discussion boards to debate them most likely because I don't have any real connection to them outside an ideological disagreement. If I were to write some sort of pointed critique on either it would have to have some sort of real-world application outside of Internet navel-gazing.

That said, I'm still curious why he would bother to "belly up to the forum", and pick a fight with someone. He's not Mormon. He's not ex-Mormon. Was it an intellectual exercise? And if so, what was the point of pointing our Mr. Riskas' dearth of philosophical astuteness? At the end of the day what is Mr. Stak's point in debating Mr. Riskas, and what did he hope to gain from it other than... Again, I'm not sure.

For example, when someone engages Mr. Peterson on an apologetic point... Usually the intent is clear. He's arguing on behalf of Mormonism, and someone is arguing against it. The "philosophical" point is clear, the arena is set, and the dialogue begins. Without having a starting point, the point itself is lost on us naves... Being Diogenes is fine, but it has no practical application beyond being as asshole.

- Doc

[_Darth J]

It may have something to do with his being into philosophy. Arguing about different warrants and conclusions and reasoning pretty much is what philosophy consists of. You're sort of wondering why a person who like basketball would wander onto a basketball court and join a pick-up game.

Also, you have not exactly remained silent on this board about Islam. Should anyone ask why a non-Muslim is talking about Islam on a Mormon discussion forum? Or should we just ignore discussions that don't interest us?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It may have something to do with his being into philosophy. Arguing about different warrants and conclusions and reasoning pretty much is what philosophy consists of. You're sort of wondering why a person who like basketball would wander onto a basketball court and join a pick-up game.

Also, you have not exactly remained silent on this board about Islam. Should anyone ask why a non-Muslim is talking about Islam on a Mormon discussion forum? Or should we just ignore discussions that don't interest us?

You're right for the most part. On this forum, when the issue is brought up, or if there's a religious context involved I'll bring up Islam to make a point. However, I don't go to islamrecovery.com, pick a fight with an ex-Islamist over philosophical nonsense, and then link to it crowing how much I think the ex-Islamist is an idiot. I simply want to know the motivation, and point for doing something like that.

And if someone brought Mr. Riskas up as a point of philosophical discussion on this forum I'd understand where he's coming from. However, he went to RFM and engaged Mr. Riskas not on Mormon/Ex-Mormon grounds, but on "philosophical" grounds because Mr. Riskas quoted this or that irrelevant philosopher. I find the whole thing rather bizarre and self-serving. You might as well have Mr. Peterson come onto this forum, and bitch about an ex-Hindu author's misuses of some nuanced Asian philosophy. An explanation vis a vis the motivation would be nice.

- Doc

[_Darth J]

It may have something to do with his being into philosophy. Arguing about different warrants and conclusions and reasoning pretty much is what philosophy consists of. You're sort of wondering why a person who like basketball would wander onto a basketball court and join a pick-up game.

Also, you have not exactly remained silent on this board about Islam. Should anyone ask why a non-Muslim is talking about Islam on a Mormon discussion forum? Or should we just ignore discussions that don't interest us?

You're right for the most part. On this forum, when the issue is brought up, or if there's a religious context involved I'll bring up Islam to make a point. However, I don't go to islamrecovery.com, pick a fight with an ex-Islamist over philosophical nonsense, and then link to it crowing how much I think the ex-Islamist is an idiot. I simply want to know the motivation, and point for doing something like that.

And if someone brought Mr. Riskas up as a point of philosophical discussion on this forum I'd understand where he's coming from. However, he went to RFM and engaged Mr. Riskas not on Mormon/Ex-Mormon grounds, but on "philosophical" grounds because Mr. Riskas quoted this or that irrelevant philosopher. I find the whole thing rather bizarre and self-serving. You might as well have Mr. Peterson come onto this forum, and bitch about an ex-Hindu author's misuses of some nuanced Asian philosophy. An explanation vis a vis the motivation would be nice.

- Doc

Cam: Riskas has proposed philosophical arguments specifically about Mormonism, this board is about Mormonism, and this board actively encourages cross-board posting.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I find the whole thing rather bizarre and self-serving.
...

I didn't experience the initial posting in that thread (viewing the whole
interchange more or less in real time) as particularly bizarre. But if it
was designed to solicit the sort of response that quickly arrived there,
then I would think that the whole matter was adequately dealt with in
those first two postings. End of story -- but it did not end there.

There are instances in which less truly is more, and I can well imagine
the thread ending at that point (after the first two entries) and everybody
feeling like he had his say.

It was the quick devolution of the presumed civility and professionalism
that came thereafter that seemed "bizarre and self-serving" to this
reader -- and, at that point, no more nor less on either side.

Chalk it up to our all being human, perhaps -- but I wonder what would
have happened had Riskas replied: "You make some good points, Stak,
I'll do some more writing and send you a copy, and maybe we can find
some ways to improve the book before the second edition comes out."

Had something like that been the response, then I truly wonder what
would have appeared next in the thread.

But, as I said, if the thread was created with the expectation of
soliciting a harsh, amateurish response from Riskas, then the motivation
to continue the anticipated conflict may have carried through into
any subsequent exchanges, no matter attempted civility.

If that were the case (and I can only imagine it; not know it) then
the "bizarre and self-serving" analysis would have been self-evident.

IMHO

Uncle Dale

[_Gadianton]

Chalk it up to our all being human, perhaps -- but I wonder what would
have happened had Riskas replied: "You make some good points, Stak,
I'll do some more writing and send you a copy, and maybe we can find
some ways to improve the book before the second edition comes out."

I think you're dead on Uncle Dale. I was far more pro-R prior to his response. I don't have a problem with non-professionals writing books, especially in an area that doesn't really require a pro. I guess I just don't think the philosophy or religion or religious studies is important enough to require professional degrees and certainly bashing the Church should be encouraged, LOL! I think there are other ways to approach the book besides Stak's, but I do think Stak's approach is valid. I do think he went into RFM cocky and ready to rumble, but at the same time, his analysis was good, and it wasn't anywhere near "uncivil". I mean, I've seen far more aggressive postings on philosophy blogs between Phds, and the heat wasn't anywhere near the point where it becomes unproductive to work. Sure, sometimes it gets to that point, but this wasn't even close.

I was literally floored, I mean, I couldn't believe it when he was like, "This is inappropriate and I will not stand for it. I will not be returning unless this person is formally silenced." And then to follow up with, "This is deeply disturbing, for all we know, this could happen again, and what then? What checks do have in place to ensure an opinionated person will not burst into the forum and demand a debate?"

It seems like he really was deeply shocked and disturbed. One thing that might be the case, he may not much experience having his views criticized and perhaps doesn't have much of a presence on the internet and feels out of his element. Consider that RFM gave him an entire forum just to discuss his book. He puts high demands on those participating and expects the mods to spend time vetting participants. And if that isn't enough, he said he would discuss the philosophy in his book, but in another forum, after this forum. I took that to mean, once the special forum created just for his book had run its course, the moderators could create another forum to discuss the phil. issues. It could be an outlandish ego here, but it could also be that he just isn't really familiar with how message boards work.