Tal Bachman wrote:One horrible, unbecoming question:
Why do people on here continue trying to reason with Wade Englund? No doubt he's a nice fellow, but...reasoning with him? "Debating" him? Isn't that like the Patriots running up the score against the JV squad they're scrimmaging against? Why is it that every thread ends up being about how Wade Englund doesn't know what he's talking about? Aren't we already all clear on that?
I'm voting to let Wade be; from what I understand of his personal travails, he seems like he could use all the peace he can get.
Just my two/tenths of a cent,
Tal
I respond to Wade because, as wrong as he is, I still care about him and I think he's well on his way to apostasy, he just needs some fellowshipping. in this case, that fellowshipping has to be in the form of the textual mirror of the textual mirror, but what can you do.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Maybe, for a variety of reasons, we should continue responding to Wade; but I want to suggest to you with all respect that Wade Englund is not only NOT "on the road to apostacy", but that he will
never
ever
...
ever
come to a place where he can acknowledge to himself that Mormonism cannot be what it claims.
No doubt your appraisal is based on things like the conflicts between his versions of LDS doctrine, and what LDS doctrine actually is according to the church's most authoritative sources; but I suggest to you that (amongst other things) his prowess in maintaining two things to be true, which both cannot possibly be true, and in fact, his inability to even recognize those sorts of contradictions, is not a symptom of progress toward an enlightenment, but rather, sure evidence that no such progress will ever be made.
But perhaps, in Brother Englund's case, that is very much for the best. Who knows what kind of life he would be living, were it not for the identity, companionship, purpose, sense of moral certainty, broad social net, etc., he finds within Mormonism? For example, I suspect that not even Wade himself spends much time contemplating what sorts of (random, anonymous, possibly fatal?) acts he may have committed had he never felt obligated to abide by certain Mormon commandments. I'm totally serious. There are a lot worse things for some people than spending life as the member of a particular religion, even though it is actually a fraud. Maybe Wade needs Mormonism, despite its entirely earthly provenance, a lot more than he needs, say, clarity, or belief consonance, or some sense of personal authenticity, or what have you...
After a few conversations with Wade, I actually think we ought to be encouraging his continued allegiance to Mormonism.
Tal Bachman wrote: But perhaps, in Brother Englund's case, that is very much for the best. Who knows what kind of life he would be living, were it not for the identity, companionship, purpose, sense of moral certainty, broad social net, etc., he finds within Mormonism? For example, I suspect that not even Wade himself spends much time contemplating what sorts of (random, anonymous, possibly fatal?) acts he may have committed had he never felt obligated to abide by certain Mormon commandments. I'm totally serious. There are a lot worse things for some people than spending life as the member of a particular religion, even though it is actually a fraud. Maybe Wade needs Mormonism, despite its entirely earthly provenance, a lot more than he needs, say, clarity, or belief consonance, or some sense of personal authenticity, or what have you...
This is kind of like saying, "Maybe we should encourage the heroin addict to keep shooting up. Who knows what kind of craziness he might engage in while going through the withdrawal stages of detoxification? Who knows what acts he might engage in as a straight, clear-headed non-addict? Maybe he needs the distraction and escape a lot more than he needs all the obvious benefits that come from not using..."
Certainly, there's something to be said for heroin use, but does the good outweigh the bad?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Tal Bachman wrote:One horrible, unbecoming question:
Why do people on here continue trying to reason with Wade Englund? No doubt he's a nice fellow, but...reasoning with him? "Debating" him? Isn't that like the Patriots running up the score against the JV squad they're scrimmaging against? Why is it that every thread ends up being about how Wade Englund doesn't know what he's talking about? Aren't we already all clear on that?
I'm voting to let Wade be; from what I understand of his personal travails, he seems like he could use all the peace he can get.
Just my two/tenths of a cent,
Tal
I respond to Wade because, as wrong as he is, I still care about him and I think he's well on his way to apostasy, he just needs some fellowshipping. in this case, that fellowshipping has to be in the form of the textual mirror of the textual mirror, but what can you do.
LOL, Gad! In my first few interactions with you I thought you were such a smart ass, but now I'm beginning to appreciate that about you!
I'm thankful that you're resolved to fellowship Wade into the exmo community, because to be honest, I'd rather just ignore him. Did you always get the most difficult family as your home teaching assignment, too? ;)
Tal Bachman wrote: But perhaps, in Brother Englund's case, that is very much for the best. Who knows what kind of life he would be living, were it not for the identity, companionship, purpose, sense of moral certainty, broad social net, etc., he finds within Mormonism? For example, I suspect that not even Wade himself spends much time contemplating what sorts of (random, anonymous, possibly fatal?) acts he may have committed had he never felt obligated to abide by certain Mormon commandments. I'm totally serious. There are a lot worse things for some people than spending life as the member of a particular religion, even though it is actually a fraud. Maybe Wade needs Mormonism, despite its entirely earthly provenance, a lot more than he needs, say, clarity, or belief consonance, or some sense of personal authenticity, or what have you...
This is kind of like saying, "Maybe we should encourage the heroin addict to keep shooting up. Who knows what kind of craziness he might engage in while going through the withdrawal stages of detoxification? Who knows what acts he might engage in as a straight, clear-headed non-addict? Maybe he needs the distraction and escape a lot more than he needs all the obvious benefits that come from not using..."
Certainly, there's something to be said for heroin use, but does the good outweigh the bad?
This it seems would apply to anyone contemplating a change. Would such change be it from Religious zealot to atheist or vise versa leaded to undesirable unsocial changes in the individual? Maybe, maybe not. This I suppose one must have faith that what ever the change that it will be for the best for both the individual and society. Should we oppose change just because we are not certain what the future might hold if the change occurs because we can also not be certain what the future might hold if the change does not occur.
So Schmo, go for it if you can get Wade to change that's great... lets see what the future then brings.
I guess if devout membership in religions like Mormonism, Seventh-Day Adventism, etc., has the same effects as heroin addiction, then you're absolutely right. I'm just not sure they do. In my experience, there are certain people who, for all sorts of reasons, simply seem unable to cope with certain aspects of reality, or discipline themselves through mere rationality, etc. Perhaps in those cases, the more benign cults/controlling religions do individuals and societies a favour. They might be a sort of drug; but perhaps for some folks, the choice isn't "drug versus non-drug", but "drug versus drug". In the latter case, the best choice will be the least harmful drug - and at least nowadays (perhaps not in 1857), I think being a devout Mormon is a lot less harmful than being a heroin addict. Like, you end up wasting 10-15% of your money, rather than 50-100% of your money; you wind up bored in sacrament meetings, rather than bored sitting in a pile of your own feces, infected with hepatitis and AIDS, sitting in some doorway somewhere. See what I mean?
In any case, I think the only thing you can do is give people an opportunity to know all that is relevant to their decisions; and if they choose not to take advantage of that opportunity, or are emotionally or cognitively limited to the extent that they simply cannot take advantage of that opportunity, then...that's that, isn't it? And for all I know, the subconsciouses of people, which may actually be inhibiting their ability to perceive or process that kind of relevant, though devastating, information, knows something about them that we don't.
In any case, to me, all this is moot, because Wade Englund is Gone, capital G, and to me he proves it with every post. Try to "give him the opportunity" if you want, but I don't think it's going to work; and I don't even know if admitting to himself that he has been wrong about "the prophet Joseph" would be in his best interests. What else does he have? Have a heart, bro!
I find the comparison of Mormonism to heroin a bit over the top. I do think that some people really want and need that structure and belief system in their lives. Even if the church were really a divine institution, you would have to concede that it doesn't work for a lot of people. It claims to be of universal benefit to humanity, but on a practical level that is just not the case. But for some people it works and makes their lives probably better than they would have been, although it's difficult to say that with certainty because you don't know what their lives would be without the church. I have no reason to believe that Wade (since he seems to be bearing the brunt of this) would be worse off if he were not a believing member of the church. But then I don't know that, and neither does anyone else, Wade included.
wenglund wrote:I would think that were godlessness obviously a more benefitial world view, then extolling its virtues (via positive evangelizing), rather than ripping on religion, would be the most effective way of getting religions supposedly off your back and help build them up and see more clearly?
In other words, if the godless wish to diminish the influence of their religionist competitors and increase their own market share in the marketplace of ideas, they may best do so by clearly demonstrate (by persuasively positive reasoning and more so by the fruits of the quality of their lives) the supposed increased value and superiority of their product--this assumes, of course, that the product of godlessness may evidently have increased value and is superior to religion. Resorting to smearing the religionist merely suggests that their (your) godless product can't compete on its own merits, and so it takes tearing others down so as to better compete with their (your) evidently inferior product. ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I don't agree with this. A common trait of a lot of religion is a condemnation of culture outside of the religion, on religious terms. The religionists learn to judge everyone else by the standards of their religious thoughts. They thus cannot accurately judge the non-religious, or even the religious from a different faith, because they're seeing everything through the lens of their own religion. One simple, trivial example is movies. Two of my all-time favorites are "The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Green Mile", both of which are rated R. For this simple reason, a lot of TBMs will biased against these movies, and never watch them, and assume they are filth. They will have nothing like an accurate understanding of the movies, or the movies' inherent quality. There are a great many other examples. When a religionist is so full of the explanations and judgments of things in terms of their own religion, then everyone else becomes "the World", "the great and spacious building", "the arm of flesh", etc. How could you expect anything like a realistic or positive comparison to be made?
I'm saying that atheists cannot demonstrate by the superiority of their "product", if you will, that their ideas are better, because the very values used to judge their product are inherently skewed to support the religionists' own beliefs. What example could the atheists use to demonstrate the superiority of their ideas to a hardcore Opus Dei member who whips themselves bloody every day in order to mortify their flesh and increase their slavish devotion to God? Is any example, by anyone else, going to have any convincing power?
On the contrary, Wade, I think that the key really is in arguing that the religionists' ideas themselves are wrong. The mind virus is so strong that no case, no matter how strong, could possibly convince some people, but others can still see it if presented in the right way. I doubt anyone could ever convince Osama bin Laden that in fact his religious ideas are wrong, but then, simply living a happier, healthier life wouldn't convince him either, as his religious values require him to condemn many aspects of the Western lifestyle, whether influenced by atheism or not.
Well...we apparently agree that atheism is ill-equiped to compete on its own positive merits in the marketplace of ideas. At least that is some common ground to work from. ;-)
And, you rationalize that the lack of comparative competative muster of atheism is because of the power of the so-called "virus" of religion. In a way I agree with this as well. Religion (at least those that don't feel the need to resort to negative evangelizing) is quite powerful on its own positive merits, though I don't cosider it a "virus".