Faithful TBM to doubter in 6 hours on ex-Mormon Reddit

[Res Ipsa]

Because you want to paint all atheists as non-conscientious.

That's not what I said.

If you can’t see the arrogance in that, and how it highlights your own insecurity then I can’t help you.

Is it possible that I see no arrogance because there isn't any there? Humans need God. If you disagree then let me know, and I'll explain why I think so. If atheists think things through, they will realize that in the absence of God they have an obligation to produce one. If they're conscientious then they will try. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe they will succeed; but I think it's more likely they'll give up on the whole endeavor and turn to pessimism. What else can they do?

Kevin, I've puzzled on this a few times. I don't understand why you claim that "humans need God," so I'd like to see the argument behind that.

[IHAQ]

The analogy isn't quite the same. If we historically relied on the belief that pigs fly, then yes. But humans use the God belief whether God is real or not.

The question of whether they need God is legitimate. The problem of how humans replace the God-functions is also legitimate. In fact, I don't think humanity as a whole will transition away from theism without a safe alternative.

Fortunately, though, I do think that being able to function as a whole in a pluralistic society does help humanity build the tools needed to function without theism. Maybe not all, but alot of them.

I think the analogy is exactly the same. Kevin wants all atheists (remember, if they don’t do what Kevin has determined they need to do then they are all “lazy learners”) to prove God doesn’t exist by showing that God exists. It’s a bonkers position.

[IHAQ]

Kevin, I've puzzled on this a few times. I don't understand why you claim that "humans need God," so I'd like to see the argument behind that.

Kevin is a lot like MG2.0 in that he expects you to do the work to show that he is right. I wouldn’t hold my breath…

[Meadowchik]

The analogy isn't quite the same. If we historically relied on the belief that pigs fly, then yes. But humans use the God belief whether God is real or not.

The question of whether they need God is legitimate. The problem of how humans replace the God-functions is also legitimate. In fact, I don't think humanity as a whole will transition away from theism without a safe alternative.

Fortunately, though, I do think that being able to function as a whole in a pluralistic society does help humanity build the tools needed to function without theism. Maybe not all, but alot of them.

I think the analogy is exactly the same. Kevin wants all atheists (remember, if they don’t do what Kevin has determined they need to do then they are all “lazy learners”) to prove God doesn’t exist by showing that God exists. It’s a bonkers position.

There's still legitimacy in atleast part of the demand. Dismiss his on the whole if you like but I find the part I mention to be not only legitimate but important.

That said, Kevin shouldn't lay this only at the feet of atheists. All moral people need to build a way for humanity to function without theism because we must find a theistic-neutral path in order to maintain religious freedom for us all, atheists and theists alike. Being religious certainly isn't enough...that would be lazy civility

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

JFS:



Kevin, you’re in a bit of a pickle.

- Doc

[Kishkumen]

Why are the opinions of JFS a problem for anyone?

[Moksha]

Why are the opinions of JFS a problem for anyone?

Good point. Smith's writings could be substituted for the oratory of Mathew Harrison Brady in the film Inherit the Wind.

[IHAQ]

All moral people need to build a way for humanity to function without theism because we must find a theistic-neutral path in order to maintain religious freedom for us all, atheists and theists alike. Being religious certainly isn't enough...that would be lazy civility

I’m not sure I see the need that you see. “Religious Freedom” seems to me to be an umbrella term that means groups of people seeking to maintain their right to discriminate on the basis of gender/sexual attraction. I don’t see an existential threat to groups of people being able to gather to sing hymns and express worship for whatever flavour of deity they have chosen to be the object of their attentions. As far as I can see, moral people are functioning without theism. They’ve no idea that there is some kind of problem with their moral compass that can only be saved by allowing religious folks the right to continue to discriminate.

[drumdude]

Why are the opinions of JFS a problem for anyone?

Was he speaking as a prophet or as a man? The answer depends on that.

My financial advisor told me to go all in on NFTs.


6 months later when I lost everything and confronted him he informed me he was just speaking as a man, not a financial advisor.

[Kishkumen]

Was he speaking as a prophet or as a man? The answer depends on that.

My financial advisor told me to go all in on NFTs.


6 months later when I lost everything and confronted him he informed me he was just speaking as a man, not a financial advisor.

Using one’s common sense always helps. Too many people would rather lay the blame on someone else.