Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_Lemmie]

It becomes even more clear that we are all biased in one way or another. It shows through from time to time. It is important to realize the biases from wherever they come and however they got there play a part, even if subconsciously, in our worldview...even when it comes to religious belief and/or Mormonism in particular.

Yes, this thread exposed your biases clearly when you accused Jenkins of bias and prejudice. You have never answered the repeated questions regarding your accusations, and you've used your typical evasive maneuvers, so yes, it's clear your biases play an important part in your worldview.

For you to let your accusations of Jenkins stand while so casually saying thanks for playing is rudely disingenuous and dishonest.

[_Jersey Girl]

MG,

You're a case study in Brandolini's Law.

- Doc

I give. What is that?

[_Lemmie]

MG,

You're a case study in Brandolini's Law.

- Doc

I give. What is that?

It explains why mg is always ready to leave a thread first after dumping his load of BS.

“The amount of energy needed to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”
http://ordrespontane.blogspot.com/2014/ ... s-law.html

[_Jersey Girl]

Oh okay, thanks, Lemmie.

Two words:

Vor
tex

;-)

[_Themis]

I think my Energizer Bunny is about out of juice on this thread. It's been fun. Thanks for playing everyone! As is par for the course I've been able to learn a few things during this conversation. And it's interesting as time goes on to see/understand a bit more in regards to some of the strong personalities participating on this board. It becomes even more clear that we are all biased in one way or another. It shows through from time to time. It is important to realize the biases from wherever they come and however they got there play a part, even if subconsciously, in our worldview...even when it comes to religious belief and/or Mormonism in particular. You add assumptions on top of that and you get quite a mixed bag of folks going this way and that.

Thanks again,
MG

People are not equally biased, and you can take steps to keep bias minimized when making an argument. I cannot help but see all your participation with this thread was all about something so trivial and irrelevant to anything.

[_mentalgymnast]

People are not equally biased, and you can take steps to keep bias minimized when making an argument.

I won't argue with that. I suppose you're referring to someone in particular? by the way, how are you to know for a fact to what extent a person is or isn't biased? Like I said earlier, folks can cover or mask their biases. I suppose it's possible to even appear and act as though one doesn't have any bias whatsoever.

Anyways, enough for now.

Thanks for your participation on this thread, Themis.

Regards,
MG

[_canpakes]

by the way, how are you to know for a fact to what extent a person is or isn't biased? Like I said earlier, folks can cover or mask their biases. I suppose it's possible to even appear and act as though one doesn't have any bias whatsoever.

MG, I'd still like to know - from your reading of the exchange between Hamblin and Jenkins - which parts you interpreted as biased and/or prejudiced, and how this affected the outcome or conclusions in your eyes.

[_Chap]

The Battle of Hastings was won by William Duke of Normandy in 1066.

And my (or anybody else's) religious beliefs are relevant to the truth of that statement how?

So I'm evasive?

Questions with questions.

Oh, I'm so sorry!

Here is my corrected post:

The Battle of Hastings was won by William Duke of Normandy in 1066.

The religious beliefs of the person making such a factual historical statement are not relevant to the question of whether or not it is true.

But I think readers of this board will will have got the point even from the original version.

Jenkin's demolition of Hamblin's attempts to maintain the historicity of the Book of Mormon paralleled very closely the way that an early medieval historian would be able to demolish (say) somebody who said that the victory over Harold's army that put an end to the line of English kings was won by a Arab emir at York in 1087, rather than by a Norman duke at Hastings in 1066.

In that discussion, the evidence would be clearly 'out there' and objective to an extent that would render any discussion of the personal religious beliefs (or lack of them) of the participants completely irrelevant.

That's the case in Jenkins vs Hamblin, and your determined attempt to hint otherwise just shows how desperate you are to divert attention away from the way that discussion panned out (total and very obvious victory for Jenkins) into a foggier and fuzzy-edged mode of seeing things in which nobody actually came out the winner in any objective way, because biases. And of course you don't remember any of the details anyway. Etc.

[_Maksutov]

I give. What is that?

It explains why mg is always ready to leave a thread first after dumping his load of b***s***.

“The amount of energy needed to refute b***s*** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”
http://ordrespontane.blogspot.com/2014/ ... s-law.html

First he has to tell you that the "load" is of fine gold, no matter what you say or think or what has happened. If you don't think so, well, it's because of your bias.

Doc is spot on. I see it with MG and with Frank. They don't provide information or arguments, they spray chaff as in countermeasures in combat. To use another military metaphor, they use obscurants rather than illuminants.

[_Lemmie]

People are not equally biased, and you can take steps to keep bias minimized when making an argument.

I won't argue with that. I suppose you're referring to someone in particular? by the way, how are you to know for a fact to what extent a person is or isn't biased? Like I said earlier, folks can cover or mask their biases. I suppose it's possible to even appear and act as though one doesn't have any bias whatsoever.

Anyways, enough for now.

Thanks for your participation on this thread, Themis.

Regards,
MG

Themis, I really liked your earlier comment that mg is trying to avoid by attempting his 'got to leave' and 'thanks for playing' disingenuousness:

You have already admitted that the Book of Mormon makes objective claims about the real world that other texts don't. Joseph made claims about being able to translate ancient langues that we can test. These factors will cause more to be written that the claims are false and defenders writings to defend against those criticisms. None of this has any real relevance to anything. You won't see this kind of thing happening with other texts since they don't make a lot of objective claims. They still do have people writing about them, and the size and education of the believing population will have a factor on how much is written. Does it put the Book of Mormon in some special category that has relevance to anything important? Not really.

Well said.