Why I think Thomas Riskas Is A Joke

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

At least, it doesn't seem like Stak was coming out of the gate looking to undermine Riskas...

Ha!

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

At least, it doesn't seem like Stak was coming out of the gate looking to undermine Riskas...

Ha!

- Doc

Asking for 5 critical responders to Nielson was certainly condescending, almost sophomorically TA-ish of Stak. But just putting the question to Riskas, especially pointing out that "Kai Nielsen’s understanding of “God-talk” is controversial and not widely accepted in any major philosophical traditions" is not deliberately undermining Riskas. It's perfectly reasonable to question Riskas on his understanding and response to such criticism and he should have anticipated he'd need to answer this at some point if he was expecting serious discussion.

[_Res Ipsa]

Kai Nielsen may be right or may be wrong, I don’t intend to really explore why he is right or wrong. All I want to do is show people what his beliefs really entail so people can make an honest assessment for themselves instead of trying to track down and piece together the background needed to make sense of it. And how would they accomplish that anyways? Buy up all the books listed in the back? Like finding a needle in a haystack.

Thanks for taking the time to educate folks like me who don't have the background to critically approach Riskas's book. One of my educational regrets is not taking more philosophy courses.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I suppose I should posts Mr. Stak's posts from RFM here, but I just don't care enough to do it. If I were into navel-gazing I'd listen to M83 instead of reading his posts again. Bleh.

- Doc

[_MsJack]

Riskas' response as represented in this thread is unfortunately very similar to that of the pro-Mormon mopologists who try to shut down critique through popular appeal and attacking the motives of the critic rather than responding to the critique itself. Seeking sanctuary on a sympathetic board from admin seals it.

To say nothing of the practice of slapping unfavorable labels on their opponents to poison the well. For apologists, it's "anti-Mormon," "extreme feminist," "leftist," "Marxist," etc. They're simply not satisfied with dealing with arguments and ideas in their own right and must rush for the harshest, most demeaning (from their perspective) label that they think they can get away with.

For Riskas, Benson, et al., in this instance, it was "Mormon apologist" and "troll." It simply never fails to amaze me how much some ex-Mormons simply act like more secularized versions of their Mormon counterparts.

[_Res Ipsa]

Riskas' response as represented in this thread is unfortunately very similar to that of the pro-Mormon mopologists who try to shut down critique through popular appeal and attacking the motives of the critic rather than responding to the critique itself. Seeking sanctuary on a sympathetic board from admin seals it.

To say nothing of the practice of slapping unfavorable labels on their opponents to poison the well. For apologists, it's "anti-Mormon," "extreme feminist," "leftist," "Marxist," etc. They're simply not satisfied with dealing with arguments and ideas in their own right and must rush for the harshest, most demeaning (from their perspective) label that they think they can get away with.

For Riskas, Benson, et al., in this instance, it was "Mormon apologist" and "troll." It simply never fails to amaze me how much some ex-Mormons simply act like more secularized versions of their Mormon counterparts.

Why do you find that amazing? Changing one's religion does not entail a personality transplant...

[_Stormy Waters]

To say nothing of the practice of slapping unfavorable labels on their opponents to poison the well. For apologists, it's "anti-Mormon," "extreme feminist," "leftist," "Marxist," etc. They're simply not satisfied with dealing with arguments and ideas in their own right and must rush for the harshest, most demeaning (from their perspective) label that they think they can get away with.

For Riskas, Benson, et al., in this instance, it was "Mormon apologist" and "troll." It simply never fails to amaze me how much some ex-Mormons simply act like more secularized versions of their Mormon counterparts.

Is applying a label to someone in a bid to ignore their arguments wholesale really unique to Mormonism or exmormonism? I.E. Rush Limbaugh and the use of Feminazi? Or maybe even at times the use of 'village atheist?' Other examples: creationists, tea-baggers, darwinists, dawk-fag, truthers, fundies, ... I'm sure countless examples could be provided. Is it always wrong to do this? I don't know, sometimes it saves time.

[_Gadianton]

"[Kai's] Atheism is, among all forms of Atheism I have studied over the years, the only approach that can neutralize Mormon apologetics and promote the real doubt necessary to break the vicious "double-bind" of Mormonism."

Yeah I saw that one. I'm not familiar with Kai at all, but I thought it was interesting that in the sentence prior, he says that he studied Kai "post-deconversion" and it was "therapeutic" (another word like "deconstruction" thrown around frequently in an everyday, literal sense to make things confusing when considering his sources) for him. Anyway, it sounded like he did just fine neutralizing apologetics, promoting real doubt within himself, and that he broke the "double-bind" of Mormonism all without any help from Kai. Then, he went on to study Kai, and found what he felt was the best way to argue against it.

[_Darth J]

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.

[_Darth J]

What part/parts of Thomas Riskas's book is/are untrue?

Ah ye olde argument from ignorance.

Where's Darth J when you need him? I guess it is kind of fun committing the fallacy fallacy.

Tell me Dr. Shares, what is untrue about Dune?

Dr. Shades did not present an argument at all. He asked a question.

You're not committing a fallacy, either, because you're not trying to prove a point. You're just trolling. I would say it's pathetic, but you're too much of a idiot to deserve any pathos.