Over time, though, this assertion has become increasingly problematic, and I would argue that this year--2020--is the year in which the bottom of that argument has at last completely disintegrated. The "blame" for this, as it were, can be placed almost entirely on the shoulders of Louis C. Midgley.
Of course, you could see cracks in the argument long ago: DCP and others claimed that the ex-Mormons on RfM actually *were* still religious: it's just that they'd transferred their religious zeal over to hating the LDS Church. There was Bill Hamblin, casually tossing around the anti-Semitic "K" word on the FAIR Mormon blog; and DCP got into trouble after he told Jews--on a Jewish blog--that they had better shut up with their criticism of LDS baptisms for holocaust victims because "Jews have few friends in the world" (yes: that was his exact language).
Other problematic statements emerged, such as DCP's trashing of Calvinist beliefs. But like I said, 2020 seems unique in the annals of Mopologetics insofar as Midgley had totally blown the whole thing apart. Of course the Mopologists hate other people's religious beliefs! It happens even within their own Church: every single post on "Sic et Non" about Jonathan Neville is a case in point. They hate the Heartlanders; they hate the Mormon Transhumanists. All of these other belief systems--according to them--are perfectly acceptable objects of ridicule.
And Midgley has been leading the charge--his interactions with Gina Colvin being a prime example. Lemmie has rightly pointed out many times just how dismissive Midgley has been vis-à-vis what he calls her "Anglican thing." (And each Sunday, I assume that Midgley does his "Mormon thing"? Actually, he never seems to do it at all. His behavior seems so far removed from anything even resembling "Christian" that you have to wonder which faith he actually ascribes to.) Midgley was also dismissive of Colvin's affiliation with the Community of Christ: he noted more than once that the faith seemed to be essentially "shriveling," and he seemed to make a mockery of the relatively low membership rate. The LDS Church has more meetinghouses in the area than the Community of Christ...So, score one for the Mopologists, I guess?
And then there is the Mopologists' non-stop attacks on Gemli, whom they accuse of being an atheist "zealot," and thus a "religionist." Again, I ask: Do the Mopologists care about others' beliefs? Do they think that being respectful towards others' beliefs is a healthy thing to do? I'm sure DCP would point to his connection to Islam as proof that he's sensitive to the religious beliefs of other people. But if that's the only example he's got, shouldn't the Mopologists be worried?
Given all this, I'm sure that Midgley's rather aggressive "interrogation" of Dr. Shades caught your attention:
Dr. Shades wrote:In brief: I spent nearly 19 years as an agnostic, but I became a deist on March 9, 2017. The reasons for this would take an EXTREMELY long time to adequately explain verbally, so typing it out would be entirely impractical.
Louis Midgley wrote:...to the idea that there is a God, or power, for Force that is perhaps the grounds for our world? But that it does not or cannot be at all interested in human affairs, including whether Black lives or any lives matter? Ever and in any possible way?
Dr. Shades wrote:I believe that it IS interested in human affairs.
I'm sure you can see where this is going. The Mopologists have spent pretty much their entire adult lives getting ridiculed for their actual religious beliefs--whether that be in a historical Book of Mormon; a Book of Abraham that's not a fraud; whether that is Added Upon, or their support for the notion of "TK Smoothies." So Midgley is looking here for an opportunity to subject Shades's beliefs to the same type of ridicule. It's straight-up bashing, in other words: "My religion is better than yours!"Midgley wrote:...really? Why? Deism is supposed to be the product of merely unaided human reason. It is most commonly held by people with very solid command of math or natural science. And hence not those with a passing interest in English literature. And hence it stands or falls on arguments and evidence. Dr. Shades, please give all of us just a tiny hint of your own reasons and arguments.
And on it goes:
Louis Midgley wrote:The last thing I want to read would be something written by a fake doctor that, as Dr. Shades just indicated happen on 9 March 2017 that "would take an EXTREMELY long time to adequately explain verbally," and hence "typing it out would be entirely impractical" to explain?
Dr. Shades wrote:I agree. Learning about how someone returned to belief in God and/or a higher power is something in which you most definitely would NOT be interested.
Dr. Shades, of course, is correct. Midgley is just looking for a soft spot that he can stab. On it goes:Louis Midgley wrote:...to a "belief in God and/or a higher power? That is entirely indifferent to and not aware of human beings or the evils they encounter or do to others? Why should you or anyone else be interested in such a "higher power"?
And, please notice that Dr. Shades used the word "returned." Is this his odd way of indicating that when he was a young fellow he sort of more or less believed in some sort of a "higher power"? Perhaps Dr Shades did not intend much of anything by his use of "returned," or perhaps this is at least hinting at what he might once sort of entertained before he went missing, and became hostile to the Church of Jesus Christ.
Dr. Shades wrote:A trusted source pointed out to me that "Deism" implies belief in a non-interventionist higher power, which is an aspect that I don't assume is attendant to said higher power. Therefore, I've clearly been using the word incorrectly. Is "Theist" the more accurate term for my point of view? Or perhaps "non-demoninational Theist?" I'm open to further light and knowledge.
I can't, because it was neither reason nor arguments that got me to this position.Midgley wrote:Dr. Shades, please give all of us just a tiny hint of your own reasons and arguments.
Notice that last sentence. Belief is based on "trauma" or "illness" or "medication"--and he adds on "drugs," which I take to mean that he's referring to illicit drugs: something different from "medication." (Or he was just being redundant.) Is it possible to be any more dismissive of someone's religious experiences? Midgley only wants Shades to talk about it so that he (Midgley) can ridicule him (i.e., Shades). And it goes on:Louis Midgley wrote:Dr. Shades: Are you telling us that on 9 March 2017 something happened to you, or you encountered something, that was, if not irrational, was at least non-rational, that suddenly convinced you that there is a power or force outside and hence greater than you? And that this, whatever it was, was neither rational nor was it the product of your own assessment of arguments and evidence?
Did this "experience," if that is the right word, somehow provide you with a moral imperative, or new ethical direction for your life? Did it somehow convince you that death will not put an end to you as a conscious moral agent?
Are you a mystic? Or did you have a mystical experience? Please consult your "trusted source" for information on mystics and mystical experiences.
Or did you have a rather typical conservative Protestant type "born again" experience where you suddenly felt like your sins had been forgiven, and you instantly became "justified" without changing anything about yourself? Did you say some form of the so-called "sinner's prayer"?
I suggest that you try explaining in more detail what happened on 9 March 2017, and then I can more accurately help you to find the proper terminology for what happened. It would help to know if you had been ill, or suffered some trauma, or were on some medication or were using drugs.
Hi there, Dr. Midgley. Yes, it's true: you *are* "mocking the personal faith of Dr. [Shades]." Here's a question I already know you're incapable of answering: *Why* are you "interested" in this? And for the record: I have no opinion on Dr. Shades's religious experience; this was the first I'd heard of it. If he's happy, then I'm happy for him. I don't know what it means to "approve of this stunning development." I don't think it's "stunning"--people's beliefs can change. And why wouldn't I "approve" of it? (Whatever that means.) Is it wrong for Shades's religious beliefs to change? Midgley's did, after all, unless he still thinks that Black people shouldn't be allowed to hold the priesthood.Louis Midgley wrote:I am reposting my comment to Dr. Shades below, in which I asked some questions about his "conversion" experience, or what might also be called "religious revival, " when he came to know of a power or force worthy of being called God, in which Dr. Shades came to know in apparently some non-rational way that this "thing" is actually interested in him so that he is now toying with calling himself what he has described as a "non-demoninational Theist" rather than his earlier description of his being a Deist.
I am wondering if others like Dr. Scratch on his hate board know of his conversion experience, and approve of this stunning development. I know so little from my brief glance at his hate board that I wonder if his return to some form of faith in God has been discussed and approved by Dr. Scratch and others.
I sort of anticipate that my genuine interest in the this matter might launch a flurry of complaints that I am mocking the personal faith of Dr. Scratch, merely because I am interested in and hence curious about his "religious experience," or however one might describe it.
---------------------------------------------------
Dr. Shades: Are you telling us that on 9 March 2017 something happened to you, or you encountered something, that was, if not irrational, was at least non-rational, that suddenly convinced you that there is a power or force outside and hence greater than you? And that this, whatever it was, was neither rational nor was it the product of your own assessment of arguments and evidence?
Did this "experience," if that is the right word, somehow provide you with a moral imperative, or new ethical direction for your life? Did it somehow convince you that death will not put an end to you as a conscious moral agent?
Are you a mystic? Or did you have a mystical experience? Please consult your "trusted source" for information on mystics and mystical experiences.
Or did you have a rather typical conservative Protestant type "born again" experience where you suddenly felt like your sins had been forgiven, and you instantly became "justified" without changing anything about yourself? Did you say some form of the so-called "sinner's prayer"?
I suggest that you try explaining in more detail what happened on 9 March 2017, and then I can more accurately help you to find the proper terminology for what happened. It would help to know if you had been ill, or suffered some trauma, or were on some medication or were using drugs.
In any case, it would seem that Midgley either thought better of what he was doing, or he was gently chided by somebody to knock it off. Check out these two schizophrenic posts:
Midgley wrote:Dr. Shades: I am genuinely interested in what exactly happened to you on 9 March 2017 that caused you to regain/faith in a force or a higher power or God that cares about you and other human beings. And hence presumably convinced you that human beings are not merely cockroaches. Did you, I wonder, have a NDE? Or did you have what in German is called a Himmelfahrt--a glorious trip to heaven? Or have you become a mystic? I think that Professor Peterson might give you permission to respond to my gentle request for more information on your transforming experience on this blog entry, instead of on the cockroach blog item. Either way will be fine with me.
Maybe Dr. Moore was holding his "deal" over DCP's thread, and still holding out the promise of $10,000 if there is "de-escalation" of the "war," and this prompted Peterson to reach out to Midgley and tell him to shut up? LOL if that's the case.Louis Midgley wrote:I suddenly realized that I really have no interest in having a conversation with Shades about anything. I would be delighted if Moksha and Shades (and several others) would just entertain themselves in their own arena.
In any event, this is shaping up to be quite an interesting year in Mopologetics. 2020 was going to go down as a historic year (mostly for unpleasant reasons, so why not heap it on?) no matter what. But Midgley has made a (dubiously) important contribution insofar as he has supplied absolutely incontrovertible and irrefutable evidence that the Mopologists engage in mockery and dismissal of others' religious beliefs. If it's okay to do this to other people, then why is it wrong to do it to the Mopologists?