Anti-Mormon?

[_Alfredo]

put the bong down and realize that you are contradicting yourself into nonsense.

Put the bong down? How bout you check your ego, sir? You don't know anything about me and you think you can tell when I'm high over the internet.

I don't know that I've contradicted myself once. I challenge you to provide an example.

1. "operate precariously from insufficient information" - but enough information to know this...interesting

Why should I care?

2. "There's simply no discernable defense of the truth of any religious paradigm" - this assertion has been refuted and has been shown to be conjecture time and time again. (see also #1 above)

Then provide one defense of the truth of any religious paradigm by appealing to some evidence which isn't the same subjective, circumstantial evidence (spiritual benefits) which can be interchanged at different degrees to defend any other paradigm.

3. "Often, our biggest mistake is thinking some spiritually fulfilling benifit verifies our chosen paradigm" - How is this a mistake again?

Why should I respond when you can't even read a simple statement. The mistake is thinking spiritual benefit is some significant verification of the truth of some religious paradigm. The only possible support for verification that can be offered by the faithful is that it really feels like verification.

The truth we can't acknowledge is that everyone holds the "personal belief" that their particular "personal experiences" which confirms, without question, one paradigm and disconfirms others.

I'm not picking who's right or wrong... really, I'm only pointing out the situation. The situation is that we ignore our own arguments when they're given by others. I'm only recognizing that it's silly, most people are capable of this realization... so we should really move on and think more about solutions to this problem instead of clinging to the ones that just happen to give you indescribable feelings.

Why can't you face the facts, sub? Why do you acknowledge that disagreements exist, but not acknowledge the implications of why they won't agree?

The desire to behave in the "Anti" way is rather explicit and surely cannot be confused with being "good".

Highly doubt it. I think it happens all the time. Plenty of people find themselves seeking to control a situation for the "better" and often as a result of that person's judgement, their attempt to take control takes the form of discrimination, persecution, hostility and prejudice. Very simple idea. What's so impossible?

[_subgenius]

"There's simply no discernable defense of the truth of any religious paradigm"

compared to:

Then provide one defense of the truth of any religious paradigm by appealing to some evidence which isn't the same subjective, circumstantial evidence (spiritual benefits) which can be interchanged at different degrees to defend any other paradigm.

(emphasis mine)

class, here we see a great example of not only moving the goalposts with a little bit of CYA...but mostly it is just a textbook example of inadequate thinking.

sooo....should i just wait to answer whatever question you really meant to ask...or are you relying on my answers to frame your questions?

[_subgenius]

The mistake is thinking spiritual benefit is some significant verification of the truth of some religious paradigm.

you made the claim, so prove it.
given that you have already accepted a "religious paradigm" why are you imposing fallacies from other paradigms upon it?
I am not sure you realize the implication of stating that there is a religious paradigm, nor am i sure that you even know how to define it.
I am sure that you are mistaken about this particular point.

The only possible support for verification that can be offered by the faithful is that it really feels like verification.

again, you seemingly have little understanding for the paradigm you wish to discuss......but as soon as you prove your first claim we can then disassemble this claim.

[_subgenius]

What one believes tends to inform them on what they do not believe,

i disagree.
belief and disbelief seemingly only have an adversarial relationship but one does not necessarily beget the other....except perhaps when dealing with intrinsic opposites.

and anti does not have to be about hostility or persecution.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti

i never said it was exclusive...i have always maintained the context of the OP, and that is a valid context. So, within that context there is a distinction in motivation...which contradicts your earlier assertion that the motives are all the same, whether pro or anti...so, now we realize that even among anti, there can be variations.
I appreciate your broad stroke, but the context of my OP s quite clear, is it not?

[Guest]

What one believes tends to inform them on what they do not believe,

i disagree.
belief and disbelief seemingly only have an adversarial relationship but one does not necessarily beget the other....except perhaps when dealing with intrinsic opposites.

You may notice I worded my response so as not to be absolute with what I am saying, but I see you disagree and then agree with me in the same sentence. Perhaps you started to try and think of examples of beliefs that don't lead to what you would not believe.

i never said it was exclusive...i have always maintained the context of the OP, and that is a valid context.

I agree with the definition of wiki, but then most here would not fit that definition. Anti itself does not have to involve those negatives traits.

So, within that context there is a distinction in motivation...which contradicts your earlier assertion that the motives are all the same, whether pro or anti...so, now we realize that even among anti, there can be variations.

Not necessarily as some have already shown. Their motivations can still be good, even though they may discriminate, persecute, and demonstrate hostility. Not unlike some others including LDS who will do things they consider bad for the greater good.

[_Alfredo]

"There's simply no discernable defense of the truth of any religious paradigm, only discussions about how each paradigm, while incompatible, are all supported the by the same subjective, circumstantial evidence (spiritual benefits), just in different degrees."

compared to:

Then provide one defense of the truth of any religious paradigm by appealing to some evidence which isn't the same subjective, circumstantial evidence (spiritual benefits) which can be interchanged at different degrees to defend any other paradigm.

(emphasis mine)
Are you high, sub?

sooo....should i just wait to answer whatever question you really meant to ask...or are you relying on my answers to frame your questions?

I try to improve the frame, and rephrase the question. So, what? I enjoy seeing your mind flounder about nearly as much as I love refining arguments. I also put them in my bong and smoke them. Then I go for a cruise and listen to Mormon expression. Did you know their conference review is online?

you made the claim, so prove it.

Here it goes.

The mistake is thinking spiritual benefit is some significant verification of the truth of some religious paradigm in comparison to the reports of others.

What don't I understand?

The feeling/experience of "spiritual confirmation" or "revelation" or "transcendent knowledge" or whatever is the #1 and only necessary factor to buying into any religious paradigms.

People report it now. People will probably report it forever. Plus, we have every reason to believe we've done it as long as we've been people.

The simple fact which believers refuse to run with--and often run away from--is that we know it's we're using epistemic tool and interpretations which can be highly dysfunctional yet powerfully convincing. Everyone knows these tools and interpretive methods are used to irrationally defended the confirmation of a growing (possibly infinite) number of incompatible paradigms. Don't even think about asking for a CFR before I'm forced to bring up the TSCC's ugly siblings.

Why do you only acknowledge that disagreements exist... when clearly the disagreement is caused by someone who must be powerfully convinced by a false revelatory experience.

That these powerful yet deceptive experiences exist adds an extra list of implications...

Step 1: the experiences needs to be studied and analyzed for the obvious reason of attempting to discover whether the ones important to you are involved.
Step 2: no logically sound or balanced or non-circular method for interpreting the "confirming" experiences exists. (Not even science.)
Step 3: can't study them. In denial about your true lack of useful knowledge.
Step 4: you're not even interested in analyzing any "confirming" experience except in poor or biased samples.
Step 5: what makes me so sure of step 4? I'm glad you noticed. Well, the reason is this (Step 6): if your samples weren't poor or biased, then you'd believe more contradictory things than you could keep track of.
Steps 7-100: Aaaaand the usual bull about how only you can only trust your personal experience... no, trust your heart. Other lame excuses about how no judgement of others experiences has been made, it's all a magic mystery, you're being spiritually blind, etc.
Step 101: Nothing changes the fact that you really "know" next to nothing about whether your preferred experiences are the real dupes, yet continue to believe as if you have it all figured out when everyone around you who must be wrong sounds just like you as they explain how they have it all figured out in a way that's interchangeable with your argument and they'll cry that you're going to hell and you've been duped and you bet on yourself anyways and forever and ever and ever and magic plus zero awareness or acknowledgement of any of these facts on your part.

given that you have already accepted a "religious paradigm" why are you imposing fallacies from other paradigms upon it?

Not a clue what you're talking about... again.

[_subgenius]

If you own a tobacco store that sells tobacco then you aren't pro health.

so, you get to say what is "pro" and "anti" and i do not....got it!

You can attend Sacrament and maintain membership without being pro Mormon, yes. Lots of people do every week.

nuff said, thanks for the affirmation.
by the way, i accept your sidestepping...intentionally replacing my inquiry's "anti-mormon" with "without being pro-mormon" is concession enough for me and everyone else.

[_subgenius]

I try to improve the frame, and rephrase the question. So, what? I enjoy seeing your mind flounder about nearly as much as I love refining arguments.

if you are not going to be honest then why bother? you cheat yourself more than you cheat me. It is obvious that you were not refining, but excluding what you know is "not good" for your argument.
Call it what you will, but most people saw the goal post move...and the others simply were not looking.

What don't I understand?

that you speak about a religious paradigm and then insist on using a different paradigm
for example:

Step 1: the experiences needs to be studied and analyzed...

exactly how and why?

given that you have already accepted a "religious paradigm" why are you imposing fallacies from other paradigms upon it?

Not a clue what you're talking about... again.[/quote]
finally, we agree....that your posts really do not have a clue.

[_Alfredo]

if you are not going to be honest then why bother?

You're confident I'm not being honest? Well, then go ahead. Explain yourself. Shut me down. Show me how I "got served".

you cheat yourself more than you cheat me. It is obvious that you were not refining, but excluding what you know is "not good" for your argument.

You're coming off as a bit careless. It's a little less entertaining. You're falling for the same mistakes you criticize. Refining is most definitely exactly what I did (according to a dictionary, too... cus I know how fond you are of dictionaries.) It's sort of difficult to comprehend what sort of twisted logic led you to consider "excluding" what is "not good" as anything but a form of refinement. I haven't cheated myself in any sense, as far as you know.

Call it what you will, but most people saw the goal post move...and the others simply were not looking.

You call it what you will, too. Point? It seems you've ignored nearly all of my points. Why are you so difficult to talk to?

that you speak about a religious paradigm and then insist on using a different paradigm
for example:

Step 1: the experiences needs to be studied and analyzed...

exactly how and why?

Does it matter to you? The why or how actually doesn't matter to me because my point is that any useful study or analysis not really happening. I'm sure this is the point you'll try to call out but first let me show you where I already answered your question, in the very same same sentence: "the experiences needs to be studied and analyzed... for the obvious reason of attempting to discover whether the ones important to you are involved [with the false revelatory experiences/bad magic]." Clearly, I'm appealing to a "different paradigm". Why you brought that up is still unclear.

given that you have already accepted a "religious paradigm" why are you imposing fallacies from other paradigms upon it?

Not a clue what you're talking about... again.

finally, we agree....that your posts really do not have a clue.

Actually, I see your point now and glad you called them fallacies. Less typing and more entertainment for me... and I think a very thorough explanation of the support for this assertion would be very appropriate from you.

[_PrickKicker]

Alffredo, You have used the forbidden colour! No doubt Subgenius has informed the Mods!

Lets give him something else to complain about...
Subgenius loves to encouraging people to chase their tail.