Welcome to Gaia! ::

FlySammyJ's avatar

Liberal Dabbler

Henry Hobo-Master

I admit, you've piqued my curiosity. Why have you put so much effort into defending a faith you don't hold? In my experience, Mormons tend to be well indoctrinated - they hardly need help repeating the standard defenses.
dh8d1
Fermionic
dh8d1
Fermionic
dh8d1
Clouds do not have minds, so your analogy fails.

A perfect thing with a mind would not create, due to being complete and having no desire to do so.


It, then, would lack perfect unpredictability. That sounds hardly perfect.
If unpredictability is within the definition of 'perfect' then the concept is likely impossible in any reality. For if a god is unpredictable, it cannot be predictable, and predictability is also a facet of perfection. Therefore a perfect being is impossible, so believing in one is still bizarre and cannot have created the universe.


Precisely, hence why the conversation is largely pointless.
The point still remains that believing in a perfect creator is weird.


In a similar sense to back-combing?
dh8d1's avatar

Distinct Genius

13,400 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Conversationalist 100
  • 50 Wins 150
Lucky~9~Lives
Yes - and the specific commonality

Nope.

Commonalities for this one. Multiple.
A thinking being which creates.
dh8d1's avatar

Distinct Genius

13,400 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Conversationalist 100
  • 50 Wins 150
Fermionic
dh8d1
Fermionic
dh8d1
Fermionic
dh8d1
Clouds do not have minds, so your analogy fails.

A perfect thing with a mind would not create, due to being complete and having no desire to do so.


It, then, would lack perfect unpredictability. That sounds hardly perfect.
If unpredictability is within the definition of 'perfect' then the concept is likely impossible in any reality. For if a god is unpredictable, it cannot be predictable, and predictability is also a facet of perfection. Therefore a perfect being is impossible, so believing in one is still bizarre and cannot have created the universe.


Precisely, hence why the conversation is largely pointless.
The point still remains that believing in a perfect creator is weird.


In a similar sense to back-combing?
I have no idea what that means. Are you talking about people who comb their hair back over their bald spot?
dh8d1
Fermionic
dh8d1
Fermionic
dh8d1
If unpredictability is within the definition of 'perfect' then the concept is likely impossible in any reality. For if a god is unpredictable, it cannot be predictable, and predictability is also a facet of perfection. Therefore a perfect being is impossible, so believing in one is still bizarre and cannot have created the universe.


Precisely, hence why the conversation is largely pointless.
The point still remains that believing in a perfect creator is weird.


In a similar sense to back-combing?
I have no idea what that means. Are you talking about people who comb their hair back over their bald spot?


No, that it a comb-over. Back combing is achieved by holding a lock of hair, and brushing it backwards, as to create more volume.
dh8d1's avatar

Distinct Genius

13,400 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Conversationalist 100
  • 50 Wins 150
Fermionic
dh8d1
Fermionic
dh8d1
Fermionic
dh8d1
If unpredictability is within the definition of 'perfect' then the concept is likely impossible in any reality. For if a god is unpredictable, it cannot be predictable, and predictability is also a facet of perfection. Therefore a perfect being is impossible, so believing in one is still bizarre and cannot have created the universe.


Precisely, hence why the conversation is largely pointless.
The point still remains that believing in a perfect creator is weird.


In a similar sense to back-combing?
I have no idea what that means. Are you talking about people who comb their hair back over their bald spot?


No, that it a comb-over. Back combing is achieved by holding a lock of hair, and brushing it backwards, as to create more volume.
LOL then yes.
Admiral Dardanos
Why are Mormons not very nice to ex Mormons?


mormons are taught two things:
1. Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus Christ was an Apostle who became an Apostate
2. All ex mormons are Apostates.

Get it?
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
Yes - and the specific commonality

Nope.

Commonalities for this one. Multiple.


Are not necessary; an analogy may be valid with only a single point of comparison e.g. an argument need only be disruptive to clarity to be (analogous to) a red herring, not also be in possession of teeth. Although that addition couldn't hurt.
- ninja
Nityananda-rama dasa's avatar

Devout Fairy

Michael Noire
Admiral Dardanos
Why are Mormons not very nice to ex Mormons?


mormons are taught two things:
1. Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus Christ was an Apostle who became an Apostate
2. All ex mormons are Apostates.

Get it?


Source?
dh8d1's avatar

Distinct Genius

13,400 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Conversationalist 100
  • 50 Wins 150
Lucky~9~Lives
an analogy may be valid with only a single point of comparison
False.
dh8d1's avatar

Distinct Genius

13,400 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Conversationalist 100
  • 50 Wins 150
dh8d1
Lucky~9~Lives
an analogy may be valid with only a single point of comparison
Not this one.
dh8d1

It'd be more believable if it wasn't bizarre. And if it was proven.


Proof would make it less bizarre, but is unrealistic in many different ways. Proof after all, is scarce. Humans will label things "normal" even though it isn't proven. To what degree, can we even follow this principle? If a person is to label things as bizarre because of the lack of proof, then they are in danger of being a hypocrite.

To say that it would be more believable if it wasn't "bizarre" is based only on opinion and circumstances.

Henry Hobo-Master

One assumes that by obtaining perfection, that the desire of a God is to refrain from action.


Quote:
No. This is not assumption, this is by definition.


Quote:
per·fect (pûrfkt)
adj.
1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
3. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.
4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.
5.
a. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
b. Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.
6. Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool.
7. Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.
8. Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day.
9. Botany Having both stamens and pistils in the same flower; monoclinous.
10. Grammar Of, relating to, or constituting a verb form expressing action completed prior to a fixed point of reference in time.
11. Music Designating the three basic intervals of the octave, fourth, and fifth.


I'm having a hard time finding where your definition of perfect fits in. I suppose you could be talking about the first definition, but it doesn't sound like a perfect fit.

You seem to have a narrow definition of what God should be. If God is perfect, then God would not do anything more. To what basis, can we conclude that upon? Who is to say that a perfect being is limited?

There are many definitions of perfect. Is it not possible that you have the wrong one? I still stand on my point, that this is all one big assumption, and it depends on the definition one chooses to use.

Example of a contradicting definition: Perfection is the ability to perform an action flawlessly. One can be "perfect" at pushing red buttons for this very reason (assuming there are red buttons available to push). The trait of their "perfection" does not limit their actions. They can still push red buttons all they want, without being less perfect. Action does not determine what perfection can and cannot be, unless you are using a contradicting (or controversial) definition.

Quote:
We know that the tools used by specific religions are placebo. Prayer, afterlife, spirits, gods watching over you... those placebos are all used by many religions, mormonism is included.


Placebos are often used in controlled situations. Placebos are often used with "knowledge" of its fakeness. In other words, one cannot declare any specific religion a "placebo" unless they know its fake. It makes sense that there must be a few placebo effects placed in some or most religions.

But nobody can determine if Mormonism, or any other religion contains this "effect". We would first need physical proof that its fake; something most religions lack.
Michael Noire
Admiral Dardanos
Why are Mormons not very nice to ex Mormons?


mormons are taught two things:
1. Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus Christ was an Apostle who became an Apostate
2. All ex mormons are Apostates.

Get it?


1. Judas betrayed Christ. Ex-Mormons do not betray Mormonism. Anti-Mormons betray Mormonism in a sense, by attacking the religion.

2. Ex-Mormon =/= Anti-Mormons. Apostate refers to the abandonment. An Ex-Mormon is an Apostate for this reason (like you have said). However, an Ex-Mormon is not an Anti-Mormon.

I feel like these statements are implying that Ex-Mormons betrayed the Mormon religion in some way (like Judas). However, its this is not always true. Its only when apostates become Anti-Mormon, are they like Judas.

There is no justification for Mormons who treat Ex-Mormons wrongly for this reason.
FlySammyJ
Henry Hobo-Master

I admit, you've piqued my curiosity. Why have you put so much effort into defending a faith you don't hold? In my experience, Mormons tend to be well indoctrinated - they hardly need help repeating the standard defenses.


I created this thread because I needed a place to put down my arguments, in case I ever saw a thread about these very same issues. I am also interested in hearing Anti-religious remarks; I often wonder why people believe such negative things.

Mormons tend not to be well indoctrinated (on the internet, or against Anti-Mormonism).

Also, I believe the Book of Mormon to be of curious creation. I cannot declare if its true or not, but its rather curious in many different ways. The religion does not mean much to me at this time. I feel indebted to the Book and the knowledge I have learned.
dh8d1's avatar

Distinct Genius

13,400 Points
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Conversationalist 100
  • 50 Wins 150
I'll try to make this brief
Henry Hobo-Master
Proof after all, is scarce.
Nope
Henry Hobo-Master
Humans will label things "normal" even though it isn't proven.
Irrelevant.
Henry Hobo-Master
To what degree, can we even follow this principle? If a person is to label things as bizarre because of the lack of proof, then they are in danger of being a hypocrite.
Strawman.
Henry Hobo-Master
To say that it would be more believable if it wasn't "bizarre" is based only on opinion and circumstances.
More circumstances than opinion.
Henry Hobo-Master
Quote:
per·fect (pûrfkt)
adj.
1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
I'm having a hard time finding where your definition of perfect fits in.
There'd be no reason to create if god was complete. He'd have no motivation, no desire. A complete individual is static. The only reason anybody desires anything is because they are imperfect, incomplete.
Henry Hobo-Master
You seem to have a narrow definition of what God should be. If God is perfect, then God would not do anything more. To what basis, can we conclude that upon? Who is to say that a perfect being is limited?
A perfect being has no need for anything, thus would not act. Period.
Henry Hobo-Master
There are many definitions of perfect. Is it not possible that you have the wrong one? I still stand on my point, that this is all one big assumption, and it depends on the definition one chooses to use.
Equivocation fallacies now?
Henry Hobo-Master
In other words, one cannot declare any specific religion a "placebo" unless they know its fake
No. Just no. This is special pleading. There are demonstrable studies done on the inefficacy of the things mentioned.
Henry Hobo-Master
But nobody can determine if Mormonism, or any other religion contains this "effect".
Please stop with the special pleading. This argument can be used on medicine, too.
Henry Hobo-Master
We would first need physical proof that its fake; something most religions lack.
Nope. We only need lack of proof that it's real. That's what placebos are based upon.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games