Recovery from MAD

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Zoidberg
_Emeritus
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:42 am

Post by _Zoidberg »

skippy the dead wrote:
Runtu wrote:
Bond...James Bond wrote:Off Topic: Just checked on some homophobe threads by the resident MADites and noticed that the poster Zoidberg was banned. May he/she be counted among the Banites for their work on the famous bikini thread.


Really? They banned him? I enjoyed his posts. And yes, that thread is so over-the-top homophobic I don't dare post on it.


Her.

And I guess she "annoyed the mods." Is that the new standard for permission to post now - cannot annoy the mods?


That's okay - I'm here now! Hopefully, you guys will let me keep this avatar, as well, unlike the MADhouse owners.

I think I have finally reached full understanding of what the purpose of MAD is. It's not for me to "come and slam LDS every day", as the mods there put it (of course, they failed to demonstrate any examples of me slamming LDS), it's for the particular breed of LDS that posts there, headed by juliann and her sidekick charity (not to mention Pahoran; if all LDS missionaries were like him, the Church would no one to rely on but the BICs), to slam gays, "apostates" and whatever other group of people they decide deserves their insults and condescension. Natalie R. Collins was absolutely right when she compared MAD to RfM in terms of ad homs. Of course, people on RfM actually make sense most of the time.

Prior to the permanent ban they suspended me for standing up for my home country, Russia, when I called a ridiculous statement that most people there die of STDs, drug abuse and suicide ignorant and bigoted (I guess Cold War proaganda myths are still alive and well with many).

I think they have found a foolproof apologetic solution on that board: eliminate all the critics. There, problem solved. No one has anything against Mormonism anymore. Too bad it can't be done in real life.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
_Scottie
_Emeritus
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm

Post by _Scottie »

beastie wrote:Just stating something obvious, to those who, once again, do not have the emotional compulsion to believe - Mormon apologetics is littered with confirmation bias.

Deep down, you all know that people without any compulsion to believe view your assertions as ridiculous.

I had a thread on MAD a while ago about this.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=26062

Basically, most TBM's said that without their spiritual witness, they would not believe.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman

I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
_Zoidberg
_Emeritus
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:42 am

Post by _Zoidberg »

Scottie wrote:
beastie wrote:Just stating something obvious, to those who, once again, do not have the emotional compulsion to believe - Mormon apologetics is littered with confirmation bias.

Deep down, you all know that people without any compulsion to believe view your assertions as ridiculous.

I had a thread on MAD a while ago about this.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=26062

Basically, most TBM's said that without their spiritual witness, they would not believe.


It says "not found" even when I paste.
_Scottie
_Emeritus
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm

Post by _Scottie »

Zoidberg wrote:
Scottie wrote:
beastie wrote:Just stating something obvious, to those who, once again, do not have the emotional compulsion to believe - Mormon apologetics is littered with confirmation bias.

Deep down, you all know that people without any compulsion to believe view your assertions as ridiculous.

I had a thread on MAD a while ago about this.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=26062

Basically, most TBM's said that without their spiritual witness, they would not believe.


It says "not found" even when I paste.

Hmmm...weird. Worked for me.

Did you click on it, then paste it? They have this board blocked, so you have to open a new browser and paste it right in.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman

I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
_Zoidberg
_Emeritus
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:42 am

Post by _Zoidberg »

Scottie wrote:Did you click on it, then paste it? They have this board blocked, so you have to open a new browser and paste it right in.


Okay, it worked this time.

Very nice thread. I especially liked this response by Deborah: "sometimes when I read the Book of Mormon or the D&C or hear some of the historical accounts from faithful members I see not just a spiritual confirmation but very practical and logical reasons for believing that Joseph was a prophet." (emphasis added)

We all know that historical accounts given by faithful members is the most objective source.

I have been very careful to weed confirmation bias out of my thinking. It becomes a lot easier to profess your belief in something when you admit that you have no proof whatsoever to offer others.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

zoidberg,

MAD has disabled any direct linking from here to there. It's one of their many attempts to control boards other than their own. You always have to copy and paste links.

Scottie,

Thanks for the thread link. I think any believer who has seriously thought about the issue will have to admit that - without the "evidence" of the witness of the HG - the claims of Mormonism are quite ludicrous, as analyzed solely through logic and reason. Just look at the most basic claims of Mormonism:

1 - A white angel appeared to Joseph Smith, claimed to be the ancestor of modern Indians, and told him where some gold plates were buried.

2 - Joseph Smith obtained the gold plates and was able to translate them by looking through special spectacles or a rock in a hat.

3 - The angel then demanded the plates back, permanently disabling any possibility of analyzing their antiquity or contents.

4 - An angel with a flaming sword told Joseph Smith to marry other women toute suite or suffer the consequences.

5 - God told Joseph Smith it was A-OK for him to also marry other men's wives - sometimes after sending the men away on missions.

6 - Joseph Smith translated papyri written "by the hand of Abraham", claiming, among other things, God lives on near a star called Kolob. The papyri are later discovered and contain typical Egyptian funeral citations.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

I defy any believer to tell me, with a straight face, that any of these are beliefs that reasonable people would accept based solely on reason and logic.

Of course, there are some poor souls in the world who are intoxicated with the idea of the supernatural in general, and believe that the stars predict their future, aliens are abducting people and sticking things up their butts, and that telephone psychics can help them figure out their lives. These poor folk might use a twisted form of "logic and reason" to accept all of the above. Lots of TV shows are designed with just these folk in mind.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Once again, Eric Hoffer, in his book The True Believer, already recognized this phenomenon:

“So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” (Luther) To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for four years the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes that the cruel misery inside the Soviet promise land.

It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.

Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine: it must be “contrary to nature, to common sense, and to pleasure”.


110 Whence comes the impulse to proselytize?

Intensity of conviction is not the main factor which impels a movement to spread its faith to the four corners of the earth: “religions of great intensity often confine themselves to contemning, or destroying, or at best pitying what is not themselves.” Nor is the impulse to proselytize an expression of an overabundance of power which as Bacon has it “is like a great flood, that will be sure to overflow.” The missionary zeal seems rather an expression of some deep misgiving, some pressing feeling of insufficiency at the center. Proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than a desire to bestow upon the world something we already have. It is a search for a final and irrefutable demonstration that our absolute truth is indeed the one and only truth. The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others. The creed whose legitimacy is the most easily challenged is likely to develop the strongest proselytizing impulse. It is doubtful whether a movement which does not profess some preposterous and patently irrational dogma can be possessed of that zealous drive which “must either win men or destroy the world.” It is also plausible that those movements with the greatest inner contradiction between profession and practice – that is to say with a strong feeling of guilt – are likely to be the most fervent in imposing their faith on others.

The passion for proselytizing and the passion for world dominion are both perhaps symptoms of some serious deficiency at the center. It is probably as true of a band of apostles or conquistadors as it is a band of fugitives setting out for a distant land that they escape from an untenable situation at home. And how often indeed do the three meet, mingle, and exchange their parts.


81 The effectiveness of a doctrine does not come from its meaning but from its certitude. No doctrine however profound and sublime will be effective unless it is presented as the embodiment of the one and only truth. It must be the one word from which all things are and all things speak. Crude absurdities, trivial nonsense and sublime truths are equally potent in readying people for self-sacrifice if they are accepted as the sole, eternal truth.

It is obvious, therefore, that in order to be effective a doctrine must not be understood, but rather has to be believed in. We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand. A doctrine that is understood is shorn of its strength. Once we understand a thing, it is as if it had originated in us. And, clearly, those who are asked to renounce the self and sacrifice it cannot see eternal certitude in anything which originates in the self. The fact that they understand a thing fully impairs its validity and certitude in their eyes.

The devout are always urged to seek the absolute truth with their hearts and not their minds. “It is the heart which is conscious of God, not the reason.” Rudolph Hess, when swearing in the entire Nazi party in 1934, exhorted his hearers: “Do not seek Adolf Hitler with your brains: all of you will find him with the strength of your hearts.” When a movement begins to rationalize its doctrine and make it intelligible, it is a sign that its dynamic span is over; that it is primarily interested in stability. For, as will be shown later, the stability of a regime requires the allegiance of the intellectuals, and it is to win them rather than to foster self-sacrifice in the masses that doctrine is made intelligible.

If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible or vague, it has to be unverifiable. One has to get to heaven or the distant future to determine the truth of an effective doctrine. When some part of a doctrine is relatively simple, there is a tendency among the faithful to complicate and obscure it. Simple words are made pregnant with meaning and made to look like symbols in a secret message. There is thus an illiterate air about the most literate true believer. He seems to use words as if he were ignorant of their true meaning. Hence, too, his taste for quibbling, hair-splitting and scholastic tortuousness.

We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Scottie
_Emeritus
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm

Post by _Scottie »

beastie wrote:
If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible or vague, it has to be unverifiable.

I'm not sure what "unintelligible" means, but I find it humorous that there are quite a few Mormon doctrines that are neither vague or unverifiable.

Earth is 6000 years old
Global flood
So many things in the Book of Mormon...horses, money, etc.

Edit: Oh ya, forgot to add Book of Abraham here...
Last edited by Guest on Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman

I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

I'm not sure what "unintelligible" means, but I find it humorous that there are quite a few Mormon doctrines that are neither vague or unverifiable.

Earth is 6000 years old
Global flood
So many things in the Book of Mormon...horses, money, etc.


Ah, but the apologists ensure it is unverifiable.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

Zoidberg wrote:
skippy the dead wrote:
Runtu wrote:
Bond...James Bond wrote:Off Topic: Just checked on some homophobe threads by the resident MADites and noticed that the poster Zoidberg was banned. May he/she be counted among the Banites for their work on the famous bikini thread.


Really? They banned him? I enjoyed his posts. And yes, that thread is so over-the-top homophobic I don't dare post on it.


Her.

And I guess she "annoyed the mods." Is that the new standard for permission to post now - cannot annoy the mods?


That's okay - I'm here now! Hopefully, you guys will let me keep this avatar, as well, unlike the MADhouse owners.

I think I have finally reached full understanding of what the purpose of MAD is. It's not for me to "come and slam LDS every day", as the mods there put it (of course, they failed to demonstrate any examples of me slamming LDS), it's for the particular breed of LDS that posts there, headed by juliann and her sidekick charity (not to mention Pahoran; if all LDS missionaries were like him, the Church would no one to rely on but the BICs), to slam gays, "apostates" and whatever other group of people they decide deserves their insults and condescension. Natalie R. Collins was absolutely right when she compared MAD to RfM in terms of ad homs. Of course, people on RfM actually make sense most of the time.

Prior to the permanent ban they suspended me for standing up for my home country, Russia, when I called a ridiculous statement that most people there die of STDs, drug abuse and suicide ignorant and bigoted (I guess Cold War proaganda myths are still alive and well with many).

I think they have found a foolproof apologetic solution on that board: eliminate all the critics. There, problem solved. No one has anything against Mormonism anymore. Too bad it can't be done in real life.


Oh yeah that avatar is fine....I've had worst.

Welcome to the board Zoidberg!!!
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
Post Reply