The Book of Mormon proves the supernatural exists

[Marcus]

I think it's totally ok, and I'm glad you're sharing them. I do assume most people here are atheist by default, since it seems like that's 90% of where ex-Mormons end up.

And according to Jared Halverson once former Mormons lose their faith they lose faith in some of the most important elements of life. They lose the ability to maintain relationships with family and friends. They refuse to accept counter narratives as faith affirming. Prophets can be wrong and still be prophets. Joseph Smith can marry children but can still be called of god. They succumb to the adversaries use of polemics and ignore the tbm rhetoric.

I'll be sure to share Halverson's results with my spouse and our children. My friends in the catholic choir I sing with might be interested, too. Heck, i'll share this with ALL the important elements of life i participate in. There are so many, it might take a while....

We do ignore the tbm rhetoric though, as does the vast majority of the world. What nonsense Halverson is pushing. Unreal.

[Kishkumen]

It's an open discussion board. When I see a post that, as happens not seldom, associates atheism with naïvété, superficiality and lack of awareness of the complexities of western culture, I do not think that I do any harm by pointing out that such associations are themselves somewhat superficial and misleading.

I don't think they are superficial and misleading when it comes to Dawkins' views on religion. They may not apply well to you, but I do think they apply well enough to the celebrity atheists of recent fame. No one is saying that all atheists are poorly educated on issues of religion. Certainly I am not. But I will say that the most influential and popular atheists of our time, including such figures as Richard Carrier, who ought to have known better, are not impressive when it comes to their handling of the topic of religion.

[Marcus]

It's an open discussion board. When I see a post that, as happens not seldom, associates atheism with naïvété, superficiality and lack of awareness of the complexities of western culture, I do not think that I do any harm by pointing out that such associations are themselves somewhat superficial and misleading.

I don't think they are superficial and misleading when it comes to Dawkins' views on religion. They may not apply well to you, but I do think they apply well enough to the celebrity atheists of recent fame. No one is saying that all atheists are poorly educated on issues of religion. Certainly I am not. But I will say that the most influential and popular atheists of our time, including such figures as Richard Carrier, who ought to have known better, are not impressive when it comes to their handling of the topic of religion.

Its a good thing, then, that absolutely none of my opinions about my atheism come from the "influential and popular atheists of our time."

[drumdude]

The majority of the world's atheists wouldn't even call themselves "atheist." They simply do not believe. It's hard for us Americans to wrap our heads around because our culture is so deeply tied with religion, but a lot of families around the world simply are not religious. In the same way they are not flat earthers. It's a non issue for them.

[Chap]

It's an open discussion board. When I see a post that, as happens not seldom, associates atheism with naïvété, superficiality and lack of awareness of the complexities of western culture, I do not think that I do any harm by pointing out that such associations are themselves somewhat superficial and misleading.

I don't think they are superficial and misleading when it comes to Dawkins' views on religion. They may not apply well to you, but I do think they apply well enough to the celebrity atheists of recent fame. No one is saying that all atheists are poorly educated on issues of religion. Certainly I am not. But I will say that the most influential and popular atheists of our time, including such figures as Richard Carrier, who ought to have known better, are not impressive when it comes to their handling of the topic of religion.

No-one on the side of religious belief ever seems to criticise successful popularisers of religion for being superficial: on the contrary, they get compliments for their effectiveness in speaking to a wide audience of unsophisticated people in ways that can be immediately grasped "just like Jesus did".

I am not sure why a similar licence is not allowed to those atheists who address themselves to a popular audience. Given that the vast majority of well-known mass communicators on the topic of religion are fervent believers, it would seem to me that there is a definite need for clear and simply expressed advocacy of atheist positions pitched at a popular level. Obviously such advocacy cannot, if it is to be effective, be finely nuanced and culturally complex. But the alternative is to make articulate atheism an option that is only accessible to a few.

[Res Ipsa]

Now that I am sharing different kinds of positions, I am getting other kinds of pushback.

That's OK.

I think it's totally ok, and I'm glad you're sharing them. I do assume most people here are atheist by default, since it seems like that's 90% of where ex-Mormons end up.

I question whether former Mormons who post in Mormon or former Mormon forums are a representative sample of former Mormons. Former Mormons who retain their religious faith have religious communities available to them made up of people with common interests. They may have less incentive to seek out online communities built around something that they used to have in common.

[Dr Exiled]

I know a bunch of ex-mos and practically all have just moved on and don't care to discuss Mormonism. So, I would be surprised if I knew anyone if I discovered who are behind the avatars here and elsewhere. There is an attitude of "don't bother me with it, don't force your views on me," especially from those who still live in SLC that I know. Their families have given them plenty of guilt trips for not believing any more and they don't want to deal with the nonsense, unless forced to. Then they will voice their opinions.

This is why I always bristled when the apologists and leaders claimed that those who leave cannot leave it alone. That was always nonsense for the vast majority. As always, the church is the cause of the problem. It cannot leave the "black sheep" alone. If the church stopped with the guilt trips on family that remain, implying some sort of failure for their kids and siblings that leave, the "black sheep" would be left alone and then those "black sheep" wouldn't have any cause to say anything about Mormonism. They would just live out their lives happy to be out of the high demand religion.

[drumdude]

I don't blame any ex-Mormons who leave for stepping away completely and not wanting to discuss it further. But the more former Mormons who can educate the world about Mormonism, so that the world can make a well informed choice about joining, the better in my opinion.

[Kishkumen]

No-one on the side of religious belief ever seems to criticise successful popularisers of religion for being superficial: on the contrary, they get compliments for their effectiveness in speaking to a wide audience of unsophisticated people in ways that can be immediately grasped "just like Jesus did".

That sounds completely wrong to me. I think it is in the nature of human beings to criticize each other, and people engage in criticism of their peers and opponents all the time. I am surprised to see you employ this kind of implausible (on its face) generalization.

I am not sure why a similar licence is not allowed to those atheists who address themselves to a popular audience. Given that the vast majority of well-known mass communicators on the topic of religion are fervent believers, it would seem to me that there is a definite need for clear and simply expressed advocacy of atheist positions pitched at a popular level. Obviously such advocacy cannot, if it is to be effective, be finely nuanced and culturally complex. But the alternative is to make articulate atheism an option that is only accessible to a few.

I am completely in favor of popular advocacy for atheism, provided it is non-polemical. Similarly, I am not in favor of public religious polemics against atheism. I am by nature not in favor of polemics. If one's position relies on the inaccurate denigration of others from a biased perspective, then something must be lacking in their argument. I am probably overly idealistic in this way, but I will remain so unrepentantly.

[Chap]

No-one on the side of religious belief ever seems to criticise successful popularisers of religion for being superficial: on the contrary, they get compliments for their effectiveness in speaking to a wide audience of unsophisticated people in ways that can be immediately grasped "just like Jesus did".

That sounds completely wrong to me. I think it is in the nature of human beings to criticize each other, and people engage in criticism of their peers and opponents all the time. I am surprised to see you employ this kind of implausible (on its face) generalization.

I was part of a Christian religious group at what I cannot avoid calling an elite university, because it was. People in the group were highly enthusiastic about the crusades of Billy Graham and his successors, "because they really knew how to put the Gospel before people in terms they can understand." Some of my colleagues in this group were studying theology, and would have been well aware of the complexities that were skated over in those stadium-filling meetings. But it didn't worry them one bit. I remember one very sophisticated clergyman telling us that once he was in a hospital bed nest to a man who said "Vicar, here's a question I bet you can't answer - who was Cain's wife?". The priest in question who certainly did not believe that the events in Genesis actually took place, told us proudly that he silenced the man by saying "Well, in those days it may have been OK to marry your sister". The point, he underlined to us, was to speak to people as you find them.

No doubt sophisticated Mormons habitually critise the oversimplifications of the speakers at General Conference?

I am not sure why a similar licence is not allowed to those atheists who address themselves to a popular audience. Given that the vast majority of well-known mass communicators on the topic of religion are fervent believers, it would seem to me that there is a definite need for clear and simply expressed advocacy of atheist positions pitched at a popular level. Obviously such advocacy cannot, if it is to be effective, be finely nuanced and culturally complex. But the alternative is to make articulate atheism an option that is only accessible to a few.

I am completely in favor of popular advocacy for atheism, provided it is non-polemical. Similarly, I am not in favor of public religious polemics against atheism. I am by nature not in favor of polemics. If one's position relies on the inaccurate denigration of others from a biased perspective, then something must be lacking in their argument. I am probably overly idealistic in this way, but I will remain so unrepentantly.

Sorry - I ought not to speak from an atheist position in a way that makes it clear that the claims of the Abrahamic religions are untrue? Despite the fact that those religions are frequently used as the basis for depriving innocent people of freedoms which are their due as human beings? I don't think that is idealistic. I think it is naïvely optimistic about what the world is like, and how power is exercised in it.