Feeling Stupid. . . . . .

[_cwald]

He's had his chance to make a case. Turns out he had a personal hallucination and is spreading the gospel of it. Ok, that's cool.

Ok, sure. What's not cool is the stereotyping- saying that people who stop having his type of faith are people without values. Comments like that should be challenged.

Disregarding science and the scientific method should be challenged as well.

[Guest]

He's had his chance to make a case. Turns out he had a personal hallucination and is spreading the gospel of it. Ok, that's cool.

Ok, sure. What's not cool is the stereotyping- saying that people who stop having his type of faith are people without values. Comments like that should be challenged.

True. I have a hard time not having a similar reaction to finding out he is basically sharing the gospel of his own vision quest as I would a street preacher, though. There isn't time in a person's life to challenge every single person who comments on one's wrongness of direction, right? I mean, I'd never get anything done, anyway.

[_Lemmie]

He's had his chance to make a case. Turns out he had a personal hallucination and is spreading the gospel of it. Ok, that's cool.

Ok, sure. What's not cool is the stereotyping- saying that people who stop having his type of faith are people without values. Comments like that should be challenged.

Disregarding science and the scientific method should be challenged as well.

Yes. I was focused on the stereotyping vs. the right to preach and should have noted that. You are absolutely right.

[_Lemmie]

He's had his chance to make a case. Turns out he had a personal hallucination and is spreading the gospel of it. Ok, that's cool.

Ok, sure. What's not cool is the stereotyping- saying that people who stop having his type of faith are people without values. Comments like that should be challenged.

True. I have a hard time not having a similar reaction to finding out he is basically sharing the gospel of his own vision quest as I would a street preacher, though. There isn't time in a person's life to challenge every single person who comments on one's wrongness of direction, right? I mean, I'd never get anything done, anyway.

I don't know honor, you've written multiple paragraphs for every sentence I've contributed, but maybe that's what you meant about getting things done.

I take your point though, and that's why I have one outside spot where I engage with stuff like that. Here. Although there's a limit to that too. He's made some truly insupportable comments, but rather than go back for a discussion, he skips to the next and says he's having fun. Other than noting his bias and stereotyping are unacceptable there's not much point in continuing a discussion after that.

[_cwald]

Although there's a limit to that too. He's made some truly insupportable comments, but rather than go back for a discussion, he skips to the next and says he's having fun. Other than noting his bias and stereotyping are unacceptable there's not much point in continuing a discussion after that.

Right. What is the point in having a discussion with anyone when any type of reasoning, common sense, known facts, science and scientific method get thrown out and "bannned" from the onset of the conversation?

I guess if there is any redeeming value from this thread, is it shows why it is really not a good idea to have religious visits and conversations with our devout Mormon family members. What's the point when they do exactly what SPG has done...disregard any type of reasoning, common sense, known facts, science and scientific method that does not support their faith? Even to the point of being so arrogant one openly disregards logical fallacies as lacking in substance and depth, when they are pointed out to them simply because they cannot accept truth and facts that go against their philosophy and faith.

Hell, I apologize SPG. You are genius you ol rascal. Thanks for a great lesson on Mormonism 101. Thanks for the reminder!

[_Amore]

SPG wrote:

When do you stop being wrong?

I made up a phrase, "I am closer to truth by admission of my ignorance then anyone else is by claiming to know something." Clever, I know.

A of lot of this debate and discussion isn't so much about the issue as it is about attitudes about the issues. Someone can see the flaws in Mormonism, but then takes on an air of superiority to those that still believe, as if, what they (the enlightened) believe is somehow more real.

This struck me as very relevant generally and especially on this forum.

Narcissism and BPD (both of which my loved ones have) are among the most difficult personality disorders to treat - mainly because they involve shifting blame and not taking accountability. The church (& leaders) have actually said they don’t give apologies - and in practice they shift blame and are not accountable financially and in other ways. This hurts many people. Church “authorities” are like substitute parents, and children of narcissist or BPD parents tend to respond o such dysfunction by neurosis (taking blame), or more commonly, by copying narcissism (in shifting blame). Most members and NOM/ex-members seem to follow the latter because it’s the path of least resistance - less painful initially.

But in the big picture, the narcissist gaslighting, shifting blame are more painful because rather than taking “response-ability” they pretend it’s all another’s “ability to respond” which thereby keeps them from introspection which would result in deflating the perceived emotional pain and healing.

I do make a claim, with my arrogance. I have seen death, been there on the other side. The world is not as it seems. There is life, stuff, on the inside. There is stuff, that logic doesn't see or explain. It takes consciousness outside of logic to see the deeper layers of reality.

I like that, thanks for sharing. I also believe there’s more going on than meets the eye.

You can’t force someone to see what they’re not ready to see. Years ago, my sister told me something my mom did which even though I understood, I didn’t really want to believe it for a long time. Same thing with the church. For most of my life, I wasn’t mentally ready to really look into how it may be evil, despite that it’s also good.

[_Amore]

Res Ispa wrote:

You have presented zero evidence that the Gods folks worshipped had any causal relationship with the "strength" of their culture, whatever that means.

Maybe because it’s self-evident?
Of course, it may not be evident to you because, out of thousands of definitions of God, you may pick the straw-man logical fallacy of god as tyrannical grandpa in the sky, because it’s easiest to refute. Atheism is based on that strawman.

God is often defined as active faith and love - “strength” of a person or culture.
Philosopher Paul Tillech defined god as ultimate concern. The question isn’t whether or not you have an ultimate concern, but whether your ultimate concern is the highest GOoD or not.

[_Amore]

Gadianton wrote:

We think we know what?

Mostly lack of self-awareness and projection.
Some here think they know...
1) themselves as independent thinkers rather than having herd mentality
2) themselves as rejecting cult mentality and bigotry that demands others think as they do, while they demand others think as they do now
3) things that they take on faith (without complete proof).

A lot of the debate has been over belief as a mental representation of reality, but that has nothing to do with belief as in the will-to-power. Believing you can climb a big mountain and believing the mountain is made out of Swiss cheese aren't the same thing.

On an EEG they may be the same thing. Everything you believe - whether it’s about a mountain or your ability to climb it - is subjective - in your mind. Maybe SPG’s point is since beliefs are subjective (stemming from within us), we have power to make them work for or against us.

I am not suggesting I’ve mastered this taking the mental reins, nor do I think SPG is suggesting it, but it would be helpful to discuss and explore this power we all have.

[_Gadianton]

You make an excellent collaboration partner for SPG, amore, glad you stopped by.

Not only have I never claimed to be an independent thinker, I think the idea ranges somewhere between silly or self-absorbed and dangerous. A usual ploy in pseudoscience, not to mention a good con, is to suggest that the subject “make up their own mind” on a matter the subject is fully unqualified to make. SPG is a great example of an independent thinker, in that he doesn’t take the time to grasp the ideas in science and philosophy he drops, he just goes on and on about what he thinks.

Your second point that members of this forum are equal in cult thinking to the cults they left behind is wrong. If your point is that an Internet forum that generally has limited real world influence on its participants can be a cult — it’s a bit of a stretch already but I’m game for a really extreme example — then a great bit of evidence against that suggestion for Mormon discussions is it’s open policy to any and all information.

At any rate, Arrogance and insufferability and even closed mindedness on their own do not indicate cult indoctrination.

Your third point — the problem here is the terms “faith” and “proof” are so loose and ill defined even in the hands of many otherwise respectable thinkers that it’s nearly impossible to have a coherent conversation; so in the hands of —- sigh. Well, I think you see where I’m going with it, but if you want to give it a shot, please begin with a definition of terms.

Your response to the mountain: go read the link above where Shades responds to SPG about his diabetes. Then explain how SPG can have a subjective reality where a mountain is made from Swiss cheese but SPG can’t have a subjective reality created by his will where the doctors and science are wrong about his condition.

[_SPG]

Gadianton wrote:

We think we know what?

Mostly lack of self-awareness and projection.
Some here think they know...
1) themselves as independent thinkers rather than having herd mentality
2) themselves as rejecting cult mentality and bigotry that demands others think as they do, while they demand others think as they do now
3) things that they take on faith (without complete proof).

A lot of the debate has been over belief as a mental representation of reality, but that has nothing to do with belief as in the will-to-power. Believing you can climb a big mountain and believing the mountain is made out of Swiss cheese aren't the same thing.

On an EEG they may be the same thing. Everything you believe - whether it’s about a mountain or your ability to climb it - is subjective - in your mind. Maybe SPG’s point is since beliefs are subjective (stemming from within us), we have power to make them work for or against us.

I am not suggesting I’ve mastered this taking the mental reins, nor do I think SPG is suggesting it, but it would be helpful to discuss and explore this power we all have.

Thanks Amore. You seem to get what I'm saying and I would give you a high 5 but that seems a little self serving.

You tried to address a few points that have been brought up. But one thing you said hit me, that these things are self evident. I try to explain, but maybe to me, they are self evident.

One of the things that is self evident to me is that you really cannot prove anything. People here link to a "fallacy" but they expect it to end the discussion even though it doesn't.

I say that facts are illusions, but that doesn't mean that I don't use them. They are useful, maybe necessary, to understand each other. But to accept them as infallible seems like a lesson unlearned. After thousands of years of discovering almost everyday that we didn't fully understand the world, you would think people might think that there is more to be learned.

And after thousands of years of experience with humans trying to control us through government, belief, and information, I would think people would be more willing to question the system.

Where I stand is that I don't know, I don't trust, and I'm willing to question and explore.

It seems self evident, as you said.