What is the worst thing for apologists to defend?

[_Polygamy Porter]

You've seen dieties? God?

I saw a God.

Does this have anything to do with you new girl friend?

[_The Nehor]

Does this have anything to do with you new girl friend?

No, this happened years ago.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Does this have anything to do with you new girl friend?

No, this happened years ago.

Nehor, in my opinion, anyone who claims that they have seen god, is nothing short of a grade A kook.

If you honestly want us to believe that you saw god, you are going to lose any credibility you have left.

[_Some Schmo]

Actually, when it comes right down to it, the toughest thing that any apologist has to defend is their own intellectual honesty.

That's why it's difficult to take them seriously and not view them as liars, in denial, or simply stupid (or at least, intellectually deficient).

That's a dangerous assertion, because it's so much more complex than that. Most of us former TBMs on this forum used to be this exact same way. There's a very good reason why I was a believer in Mormonism for the first 36 of my 38 years, and it's not that I was stupid, or a liar. The mental conditioning and repetition, and indoctrination create blind spots which are only penetrated clearly with great effort, and one sometimes has to be lead to that point line by line, precept on precept.

For some people, the conditioning is too ingrained, and there really are no approaches left that can help the person learn to see around the blindspots. I'm convinced there are some people who simply cannot, literally, ever be convinced of the truth anymore, and it's a function of the state X years of Mormonism has left their brains in, and the sort of person they are in the first place. I think it takes a certain level of innate curiosity to ever be able to penetrate the BS and see the truth, and people who don't have it, probably never will.

Mormonism isn't the only offender in this regard. Take any dyed in the wool Jehovah's Witness, Catholic, Evangelical, Hindu, Muslim, or what have you, and they'll often be incapable of seeing the flaws in their own belief system, however clearly they may see the flaws in everyone elses, just like the TBMs are. It's not a Mormon thing, per se. It's a religion thing. I'm with Dawkins on this one.

It's kind of interesting how people tend to be keying in on the words "liar" and "stupid" and are totally ignoring "denial." I never said apologists were all these things; I was saying they were at least one of them. The entire rest of your post seemed to describe your state of denial for many adult years. The thing that should be mentioned is that in order for intellectual dishonesty (in the way I'm using the phrase) to take place, one sort of needs to be an intellectual in the first place, or at least want to appear so. One needs to have an interest in the nature of reality to begin with. It's in the process of acquiring and explaining reality that people can either adhere to strict standards of honest intellectual pursuit... or not.

I would never restrict this to being a Mormon thing. I've never said that. I'm with you and Dawkins on this one too.

[_Some Schmo]

Of course not, otherwise you wouldn't be in denial about it.

I've often wondered what I'm in denial about given its intrinsic nature. I think that when we have those "a ha!" moments about ourselves, we're shedding a small bit of the body of denial we all carry. It's the willingness to do so that matters.

I can see this discussion getting circular very, very fast. You're in DENIAL!! NO!!! You are!!!

So to speed things up by saying, "YOU'RE IN DENIAL"-infinity. I win

Seriously though, I like "a ha!" moments. Many happen in meditation or prayer.

I'm not asserting that you're in denial. I'm saying that it's possible, among the available options that would explain why you believe the things you've said you believe. I don't know you, so I can't say what explains your beliefs with any measure of accuracy. All I can say is that there's no empirical evidence for what you believe, so some other explanation is needed, and those are the ones I've offered. You decide what best suits you.

One thing I can say with a large measure of certainty is that there's a more reasonable explanation for you thinking you saw god(s) than the idea that you actually saw one (some).

[_The Nehor]

If you honestly want us to believe that you saw god, you are going to lose any credibility you have left.

I had credibility with you?

[_The Nehor]

I'm not asserting that you're in denial. I'm saying that it's possible, among the available options that would explain why you believe the things you've said you believe. I don't know you, so I can't say what explains your beliefs with any measure of accuracy. All I can say is that there's no empirical evidence for what you believe, so some other explanation is needed, and those are the ones I've offered. You decide what best suits you.

One thing I can say with a large measure of certainty is that there's a more reasonable explanation for you thinking you saw god(s) than the idea that you actually saw one (some).

God doesn't seem big on empirical evidence. It would be easy for him to prove that he exists if he really wanted to.

[_Runtu]

God doesn't seem big on empirical evidence. It would be easy for him to prove that he exists if he really wanted to.

Unless of course he doesn't really exist, which may explain the lack of empirical evidence.

[_asbestosman]

Unless of course he doesn't really exist, which may explain the lack of empirical evidence.

But that alone would not account for the widespread belief that not only does God exist, but that He also interacts with many on a personal basis.

[_Tarski]

Unless of course he doesn't really exist, which may explain the lack of empirical evidence.

But that alone would not account for the widespread belief that not only does God exist, but that He also interacts with many on a personal basis.

There are other more mundane things that explain that.