For former Mormons who became atheists

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I have a son and He understands that he is a sinner, as you are a sinner and in need of a Savior.

That's pure evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPRDYh9 ... ults_video

Start at 1:37.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_subgenius]

Ok, I think I can put together a summary of your position, although it's like pulling teeth to get you to actually express it. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll correct me. As well as berate me, insinuate that I'm insincere, etc.

Mormonism is true. All other belief systems are false. I can use the tools of postmodernist deconstruction combined with reductio ad absurdum arguments to show that any other belief system is inconsistent, incoherent, contradictory or leads to absurd conclusions.

However, these techniques of argument to not apply to Mormonism. There are two different ways of acquiring knowledge: spiritual and temporal. Temporal knowledge is obtained through reason. Spiritual knowledge is obtained through discernment. Reason involves interpreting facts using logic. Discernment is a direct transfer of knowledge from the mind of god to the mind of man. [I'm not sure whether you would describe this as a transfer of knowledge from god or the finding of knowledge in scripture -- the point is the distinction between reason and discernment] To obtain knowledge through discernment, and to understand the process of discernment, requires one to accept that discernment is a possible way of acquiring knowledge, knowledge of the four standard works, and a sincere desire to receive knowledge through discernment. If those preconditions are not met, it is not possible to understand or even talk about discernment in any meaningful way.

The knowledge that Mormonism is true can only be obtained through discernment.

Because discernment is an entirely different form of knowledge, it is not subject to the rules of logic and evidence that apply to reason and temporal knowledge. It cannnot even be discussed using reason, because reason simply does not apply. For example, circularity is a logical fallacy in reasoning -- but it is meaningless to apply the concept of circularity to discernment or spiritual knowledge. Thus, Mormonism is the only belief system that is not contradictory, inconsistent, incoherent, or leads to absurd consequences.

Am I at least in the ballpark?

actually you are not in the ballpark.
a summary of my position?
wha?
let us put the goal posts back, shall we?
Now i understand your desire to extrapolate the discussion into "my view" of Mormonism and other such broad sweeping notions, but were we not discussing something rather specific?
viewtopic.php?p=661142#p661142

God is subject to the Law, in other words God can not lie...can not be unjust, etc...

Again, for clarification, what is this "Law" that God is subject to? Can we look it up?

I mean, is this not why you "ask questions"? because you are simply trying to compose a much a larger supposition? You have somehow taken our discussion here and suddenly decided to "summarize" (re-state) what i have already stated and then apply that to something else...as if this idea of transposition must surely seem sensible to you...as if you can only understand it if it is applied to another thing, another thing which you have constructed yourself.


Logic and reason are not exclusive between spiritual knowledge and temporal knowledge. Neither is emotion or intuition. The scripture i cited is a reference to the limitations of temporal logic...temporal reasoning.
Perhaps you should read the Book in the Bible i referenced before - 1 Corinthians...for Paul is having this exact discourse with the Corinthians...a people who are very immersed in the idea that human learning and wisdom are paramount...see also Book of Jude.
Reading these 2 books will bring about logical and reasonable points which, when taught via the Spirit, serve to sanctify the mind and the heart.
I do not consider it as much a distinction between "logic and reason" and "discernment" but in one having a sanctified mind wherein both qualities reside.

an example - I consider it useful that one may "reasonably" and "logically" speak about the heart on these subjects with a perfect sensibility and understanding from those involved, even though "the heart" is temporally nonsense.

[_Res Ipsa]

Subgenius,

I haven't moved any goalposts because I never set any goalposts. You said something. I asked a question. I found the answer puzzling, so I asked more questions so that I could understand where you were coming from. After seeing your answers to my questions, I didn't presuppose anything -- I described my understanding of what you said so that you could confirm whether I was right or mostly right or somewhat right or missed by a mile or whatever. Using that feed back, I can either ask for some clarification or try again. It's a process we humans call discussion. Or having a conversation.

You clearly don't understand why I'm asking questions, because nothing in what you've said or insinuated comes even close. I'm actually avoiding doing exactly what you currently accuse me of. I could engage with you solely based on supposition without ever attempting to understand your point of view. I'm trying to avoid that by asking questions and getting feedback. It's very difficult and frustrating with you because, for reasons I don't understand at all, you don't seem willing to provide much information about how you think about things.

Now, I understand we have a major point of departure. If I understand what you have said correctly, I cannot understand your point of view without obtaining spiritual knowledge. I don't accept your distinction between temporal knowledge and spiritual knowledge. So, I believe I can understand your point of view because it doesn't require a sphere of knowledge to which I currently have no access. So, I'm happy to have you call what I'm doing parroting, or describing, or reciting or something. I'm going to continue to use "understanding" and you can substitute whatever term you think is more appropriate.

I'm perfectly happy to read whatever particular scripture you suggest. However, (and now I am going to set up some goalposts) I want to first determine whether it's going to be a futile exercise. If I read them and do not understand them the way you do, are you going to simply pull "spiritual understanding" as a Trump card to dismiss whatever I have to say? Also, if I in turn ask about some portion of those scriptures or some other portion of the scriptures as part of that discussion, are you simply going to reject that out of hand as "cherry picking?" In other words, can we have what you would call a "temporal" discussion of the scriptures that you would consider meaningful? If we can do that, then it makes sense for me to read what you suggest. If not, what is the point?

In the meantime, I want to check my understanding (or lack thereof) again. Given your latest, I missed the mark when I tried to correlate reason/discernment with temporal/spiritual. So, the various ways of acquiring knowledge, whatever they may be, can be used to obtain spiritual and temporal knowledge given certain other conditions. One of the conditions for obtaining spiritual knowledge is having a "sanctified" mind.

If one has a sanctified mind, can one find spiritual knowledge by applying logic and reason to books other than the four standard works?

[_subgenius]

Subgenius,

I haven't moved any goalposts because I never set any goalposts. You said something. I asked a question. I found the answer puzzling, so I asked more questions so that I could understand where you were coming from. After seeing your answers to my questions, I didn't presuppose anything

here is why i disagree with what you are saying
we were talking about
Subgenius wrote:
God is subject to the Law, in other words God can not lie...can not be unjust, etc...
Brad Hudson wrote:
Again, for clarification, what is this "Law" that God is subject to? Can we look it up?

Subgenius wrote: "image of the Scriptures"

and then you wrote:

"Ok, I think I can put together a summary of your position, although it's like pulling teeth to get you to actually express it. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll correct me. As well as berate me, insinuate that I'm insincere, etc.

Mormonism is true. All other belief systems are false."

how you made the leap from my simple and reasonable statement about the character of God to a broad-sweeping declaration on how i must view Mormonism, other religions, etc...is still lost to me...perhaps you can clarify?

-- I described my understanding of what you said so that you could confirm whether I was right or mostly right or somewhat right or missed by a mile or whatever. Using that feed back, I can either ask for some clarification or try again. It's a process we humans call discussion. Or having a conversation.

it is also called redundancy. If you have a rebuttal to my statement that "God can not lie" or that "God can not be unjust" then state it...i do not believe for a second that these two statements, either alone or together, are confusing to you...they hardly require "clarification".
However, if it is your desire for me to justify those statements, then i cited that justification...the Scriptures - and noted that there is not a specific Book, chapter, and verse that would dictate those exact statements per se.
Yet, again, this is apparently not the response you would like, because its dissection is not readily available to you - which is of no surprise...as you would need to have a basic knowledge of the material involved in order to proceed with that strategy (once again, algebra and calculus). I mean it as no insult, but if you had a deeper knowledge of the scriptures you could certainly engage the discussion - but alas, in my opinion that would still not bring you to the ends that you no doubt desire here and now.

You clearly don't understand why I'm asking questions, because nothing in what you've said or insinuated comes even close. I'm actually avoiding doing exactly what you currently accuse me of. I could engage with you solely based on supposition without ever attempting to understand your point of view. I'm trying to avoid that by asking questions and getting feedback. It's very difficult and frustrating with you because, for reasons I don't understand at all, you don't seem willing to provide much information about how you think about things.

so exactly what is the question that you have asked me, which you consider me to have not answered yet?
I can assure you that i will offer a sincere effort and honest response. Please, just link to the question you have asked here that has not been answered.

Now, I understand we have a major point of departure. If I understand what you have said correctly, I cannot understand your point of view without obtaining spiritual knowledge. I don't accept your distinction between temporal knowledge and spiritual knowledge.

Yes, i agree that you do not accept that, it is usually a given...which is why i cited 1 Cor 2:12-14 etc.
Perhaps clarification could occur if you state if you actually consider there to be a distinction (regardless of whose it may be)?

So, I believe I can understand your point of view because it doesn't require a sphere of knowledge to which I currently have no access. So, I'm happy to have you call what I'm doing parroting, or describing, or reciting or something. I'm going to continue to use "understanding" and you can substitute whatever term you think is more appropriate.

i wholeheartedly agree that you have access.
i would consider the use of the word "understand" appropriate when one displays having a perception of the intended meaning, significance, or cause of words and/or ideas...repetition does not necessarily convey that to me here, in this context.
For example if i say that "2+2 = 4" and you respond "2+2 = 4 ?" then i am not convinced that you actually understand, whereas if you responded with "4-2 = 2 ?" my conclusion would be different.

I'm perfectly happy to read whatever particular scripture you suggest. However, (and now I am going to set up some goalposts) I want to first determine whether it's going to be a futile exercise. If I read them and do not understand them the way you do, are you going to simply pull "spiritual understanding" as a Trump card to dismiss whatever I have to say? Also, if I in turn ask about some portion of those scriptures or some other portion of the scriptures as part of that discussion, are you simply going to reject that out of hand as "cherry picking?" In other words, can we have what you would call a "temporal" discussion of the scriptures that you would consider meaningful? If we can do that, then it makes sense for me to read what you suggest. If not, what is the point?

those are agreeable conditions.

In the meantime, I want to check my understanding (or lack thereof) again. Given your latest, I missed the mark when I tried to correlate reason/discernment with temporal/spiritual. So, the various ways of acquiring knowledge, whatever they may be, can be used to obtain spiritual and temporal knowledge given certain other conditions. One of the conditions for obtaining spiritual knowledge is having a "sanctified" mind.

a sanctified mind is more likely the product of spiritual knowledge...sanctification being that process

If one has a sanctified mind, can one find spiritual knowledge by applying logic and reason to books other than the four standard works?

It is my position that spiritual knowledge, per se, is from God as we are taught by His Spirit.

However, you ask a good question:
As to your above mentioned "condition" on e must rely on the scriptures and His Spirit for the correct knowledge of God...His character...and then spiritual knowledge:

“The treasures of both secular and spiritual knowledge are hidden ones—but hidden from those who do not properly search and strive to find them. … Spiritual knowledge is not available merely for the asking; even prayers are not enough. It takes persistence and dedication of one’s life. … Of all treasures of knowledge, the most vital is the knowledge of God” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, pp. 389–90).

further reading here

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

further reading here

Read the scriptures. Be humble. Gain absolute truth. Spirit. Blah blah...

It's just a bunch of nonsensical platitudes couched in spiritual language. It's no different from what one get from a yogi, imam, or Catholic priest.

Here's the Atheist equivalent:

Be thoughtful. Read an informative book. Your brain will inspire your brain with information. Act accordingly.

There. Done. Absolute Truth!

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Res Ipsa]

Subgenius,

I haven't moved any goalposts because I never set any goalposts. You said something. I asked a question. I found the answer puzzling, so I asked more questions so that I could understand where you were coming from. After seeing your answers to my questions, I didn't presuppose anything

here is why i disagree with what you are saying
we were talking about
Subgenius wrote:
God is subject to the Law, in other words God can not lie...can not be unjust, etc...
Brad Hudson wrote:
Again, for clarification, what is this "Law" that God is subject to? Can we look it up?

Subgenius wrote: "image of the Scriptures"

and then you wrote:

"Ok, I think I can put together a summary of your position, although it's like pulling teeth to get you to actually express it. If I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll correct me. As well as berate me, insinuate that I'm insincere, etc.

Mormonism is true. All other belief systems are false."

how you made the leap from my simple and reasonable statement about the character of God to a broad-sweeping declaration on how i must view Mormonism, other religions, etc...is still lost to me...perhaps you can clarify?

Be happy to at least try.

Most importantly, I'm not telling you how you "have" to understand Mormonism. How you understand it is how you understand it. I'll leave it to Mormons to discuss how one must understand Mormonism. I'm just trying to understand how you understand it.

I didn't go from my first question straight to my proposed summary. I considered everything you said in between, as well as reviewing a lengthy thread or two so see if I could fill some gaps in my understanding from that. Some of it I was pretty confident in. Some less so. I could have gone through more questions, but I thought it would be quicker to put together some kind of hypothesis and let you tell me where I was wrong. Does the statement "Mormonism is true" misstate your beliefs? Does "all other beliefs are false" misstate your beliefs?

But whatever it is you think I"m doing, moving goalposts isn't it. Moving goalposts is setting conditions for something, then changing the conditions after the original conditions have been met. Except for the scripture reading thing, I haven't been setting conditions. I have been meandering around in trying to understand your beliefs.

-- I described my understanding of what you said so that you could confirm whether I was right or mostly right or somewhat right or missed by a mile or whatever. Using that feed back, I can either ask for some clarification or try again. It's a process we humans call discussion. Or having a conversation.

It is also called redundancy. If you have a rebuttal to my statement that "God can not lie" or that "God can not be unjust" then state it...i do not believe for a second that these two statements, either alone or together, are confusing to you...they hardly require "clarification".
However, if it is your desire for me to justify those statements, then i cited that justification...the Scriptures - and noted that there is not a specific Book, chapter, and verse that would dictate those exact statements per se.

I think that's part of our obvious communication problem. I have no intention of rebutting your statement "God can not lie." But I can think of at least three different interpretations of that phrase:

1. God can not lie because there is a law that binds god and prevents him from telling a lie.
2. God can not lie because, by definition whatever god says is true.
3. Not lying is an intrinsic part of god's nature.

I didn't want to assume which was your view, so I asked for clarification.

Yet, again, this is apparently not the response you would like, because its dissection is not readily available to you - which is of no surprise...as you would need to have a basic knowledge of the material involved in order to proceed with that strategy (once again, algebra and calculus). I mean it as no insult, but if you had a deeper knowledge of the scriptures you could certainly engage the discussion - but alas, in my opinion that would still not bring you to the ends that you no doubt desire here and now.

Really, the response has nothing to do with what I like. You're trying to play 11 dimension chess with me, and I'm not even sitting at the board. My only strategy at this point is doing what I can to understand your point of view. And what is this "end" that I no doubt desire?

You clearly don't understand why I'm asking questions, because nothing in what you've said or insinuated comes even close. I'm actually avoiding doing exactly what you currently accuse me of. I could engage with you solely based on supposition without ever attempting to understand your point of view. I'm trying to avoid that by asking questions and getting feedback. It's very difficult and frustrating with you because, for reasons I don't understand at all, you don't seem willing to provide much information about how you think about things.

so exactly what is the question that you have asked me, which you consider me to have not answered yet?
I can assure you that i will offer a sincere effort and honest response. Please, just link to the question you have asked here that has not been answered.

It's not a matter of not responding to questions. It's like you answer every question by providing the least amount of information possible so that you can say you've answered the question when, substantively, you don't convey much in the way of meaning. If our positions were reversed, and you suggested a description of my belief system, I would respond by trying to communicate where you got it wrong, where you got it right, etc. I would also try to summarize what I believed on the issue we were discussing. I think you've done that more below, which I really appreciate.

Now, I understand we have a major point of departure. If I understand what you have said correctly, I cannot understand your point of view without obtaining spiritual knowledge. I don't accept your distinction between temporal knowledge and spiritual knowledge.

Yes, i agree that you do not accept that, it is usually a given...which is why i cited 1 Cor 2:12-14 etc.
Perhaps clarification could occur if you state if you actually consider there to be a distinction (regardless of whose it may be)?

Good question. I don't think there's a distinction, because I also do not accept (yet) the premise that God exists. No god -- no spiritual knowledge. But I understand and accept that you consider there to be a distinction.

So, I believe I can understand your point of view because it doesn't require a sphere of knowledge to which I currently have no access. So, I'm happy to have you call what I'm doing parroting, or describing, or reciting or something. I'm going to continue to use "understanding" and you can substitute whatever term you think is more appropriate.

i wholeheartedly agree that you have access.
i would consider the use of the word "understand" appropriate when one displays having a perception of the intended meaning, significance, or cause of words and/or ideas...repetition does not necessarily convey that to me here, in this context.
For example if i say that "2+2 = 4" and you respond "2+2 = 4 ?" then i am not convinced that you actually understand, whereas if you responded with "4-2 = 2 ?" my conclusion would be different.

I'll fully admit to going at a glacial pace. It's because of what I've seen in other discussions, where a discussion breaks down into squabbles over who misrepresented whom. The way to minimize that, in my opinion, is to make a genuine effort to actually understand what the other person is saying before launching into any sort of argument about or critique of the other person's position. So, I do feed back to you what I think you are saying in my own words to verify that I understand you well enough to at least do that. Once I'm reasonably comfortable that I can at least express your understanding in my own words, then I can do things like: so, would you agree that 4-2=2? In other words, see if you and I have the same understanding of the consequences of your statement.

I'm perfectly happy to read whatever particular scripture you suggest. However, (and now I am going to set up some goalposts) I want to first determine whether it's going to be a futile exercise. If I read them and do not understand them the way you do, are you going to simply pull "spiritual understanding" as a Trump card to dismiss whatever I have to say? Also, if I in turn ask about some portion of those scriptures or some other portion of the scriptures as part of that discussion, are you simply going to reject that out of hand as "cherry picking?" In other words, can we have what you would call a "temporal" discussion of the scriptures that you would consider meaningful? If we can do that, then it makes sense for me to read what you suggest. If not, what is the point?

those are agreeable conditions.

Great! I read through both books last night. I want to sit down and re-read the key parts of Corinthians again tonight before commenting.

In the meantime, I want to check my understanding (or lack thereof) again. Given your latest, I missed the mark when I tried to correlate reason/discernment with temporal/spiritual. So, the various ways of acquiring knowledge, whatever they may be, can be used to obtain spiritual and temporal knowledge given certain other conditions. One of the conditions for obtaining spiritual knowledge is having a "sanctified" mind.

a sanctified mind is more likely the product of spiritual knowledge...sanctification being that process

If one has a sanctified mind, can one find spiritual knowledge by applying logic and reason to books other than the four standard works?

It is my position that spiritual knowledge, per se, is from God as we are taught by His Spirit.

However, you ask a good question:
As to your above mentioned "condition" on e must rely on the scriptures and His Spirit for the correct knowledge of God...His character...and then spiritual knowledge:

“The treasures of both secular and spiritual knowledge are hidden ones—but hidden from those who do not properly search and strive to find them. … Spiritual knowledge is not available merely for the asking; even prayers are not enough. It takes persistence and dedication of one’s life. … Of all treasures of knowledge, the most vital is the knowledge of God” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, pp. 389–90).

further reading here

Thanks.

[_subgenius]

Here's the Atheist equivalent:

there is not really such a thing...you guys are always the naked one in the room of these discussions

[_subgenius]

Yes, i agree that you do not accept that, it is usually a given...which is why i cited 1 Cor 2:12-14 etc.
Perhaps clarification could occur if you state if you actually consider there to be a distinction (regardless of whose it may be)?

Good question. I don't think there's a distinction, because I also do not accept (yet) the premise that God exists. No god -- no spiritual knowledge. But I understand and accept that you consider there to be a distinction.

If you do not consider the distinction to exist then why investigate that very distinction....unless it is a curiosity steeped in arrogance? What possible motivation would you offer by claiming that a person's view is delusional only after you have expressed a now alleged desire to "understand" that view?
I would propose that you are on some sort of "mission"...determined to convert the minds and hearts of those you consider to be thinking, acting, and living in a manner that is not correct to you?
- at least the entertainment is reciprocal.

So, it is now clear that you would prefer to have the argument for/against the existence of God...which is fine...but....it does not defer my original assertions, which were the point of discussion (ie. God can not be unjust).....or does it....by which would then bring the question....can you honestly claim that you do not believe that God exists if you have no idea who, or what, God is?
It would then be only accurate to state that you do not believe in the incorrect concept of God....correct?

Which brings us back on topic...sort of....

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

there is not really such a thing...you guys are always the naked one in the room of these discussions

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

If you do not consider the distinction to exist then why investigate that very distinction....unless it is a curiosity steeped in arrogance?

I don't get it. Is that seriously the only possible explanation you can conceive of? No other possible explanation? At all?

What possible motivation would you offer by claiming that a person's view is delusional only after you have expressed a now alleged desire to "understand" that view?

Exactly what I've been saying. You've made comments here and there that piqued my interested because it sounded like you had a way of understanding the world that seemed different to me from what I've encountered before. Curiosity? Yes. Absolutely. Arrogance? I don't understand the charge.

Look, if you want to say "I don't want to discuss my religious beliefs with someone who does not believe in god," that's perfectly fine with me. That's your choice. But this constant sniping at me personally and my motives is just....weird.

I would propose that you are on some sort of "mission"...determined to convert the minds and hearts of those you consider to be thinking, acting, and living in a manner that is not correct to you?

I appreciate your candor, but in the mind reading department you are batting .000. As far as I know, only one of us has a mandate to convert the minds and hearts of others. I have no such mandate. I'm not charged with saving your soul. I don't think I've attempted to "convert" anyone since my LDS mission. I like to discuss. I like to debate. It's interesting. I think I learn from the process. But I don't feel I have any standing to try and "convert" you from your religious beliefs.

- at least the entertainment is reciprocal.

So, it is now clear that you would prefer to have the argument for/against the existence of God...which is fine...but....it does not defer my original assertions, which were the point of discussion (ie. God can not be unjust).....or does it....by which would then bring the question....can you honestly claim that you do not believe that God exists if you have no idea who, or what, God is?
It would then be only accurate to state that you do not believe in the incorrect concept of God....correct?

There you go with the 11 dimensional chess again. Why do you think you know what I want to say before I say it? Would that be arrogant? If I want to argue with you about the existence of God, I'll tell you. All I'm trying to do is understand your point of view. Maybe my original thought that you had a different way of thinking was wrong. :shrug:

Which brings us back on topic...sort of....

I don't understand why you keep talking about "on topic/off topic." If we were having a formalized debate of some kind, I can see setting some agreed parameters on the subject matter. But I don't understand why it's relevant to this discussion. Is there some rule that, having once asked you a question, I am somehow bound never to stray from the "topic" of that question? Maybe I'm just not used to the current form of discourse between apologists and critics. It just seems very strange.