DiscussMormonism.com

Over at the comments section of SeN:

Clueless SeN commenter wrote:gemli, why don't you try saying something new, please?

Gemli wrote:Well, if the old stuff hasn't yet made my point, I'm not sure new stuff would do any better. Sigh...

DCP to Gemli wrote:You might be surprised at the way actual substance can affect a conversation.

How does that substance affect the conversation at SeN?

Clueless SeN Commenter wrote:Bold of you to assume that evangelical atheists actually investigate claims that threaten their world view

DCP wrote:So true. Take poor gemli, for instance. But he's not entirely alone.

Amid all of the eye-rolling and guffawing that have ensued here and (mostly) elsewhere over my recent ruminations about the possible reality of "extraordinary knowing," not a single mocker or critic has, so far as I'm aware, so much as glanced in the direction of the books that I've cited.

Axelbeingcivil wrote:I'm not sure whether I fall into either category in your mind, but did I not go through one of the CIA research documents that was the topic of one of the chapters of these works and provide a link to the full document for the interest of others?

DCP wrote:You did. You're a much more serious-minded critic than Gemli is, or than the scorners on the Peterson Obsession Board are. I happily grant that.

God forbid DCP actually engage with criticism. He complains that critics aren't engaging, and when they do engage, this is the predictable result. Deny, minimize, bury, and go back to spewing snippets of spurious studies.

As an apologist, it took me over a decade to actually see his patterns. It opened my eyes, and I realized, he is not discussing, he is entertaining the already believing members who don't dare critically assess the information. Once I began critically assessing the information, it was curtains. Peterson knows this too. It is precisely why he is a coward when it comes to actually engaging. It is so much easier to mock and look funny and cool for his believing followers. That is all they want anyway, and Peterson is admirable to them for providing them with entertainment... because... after all, the brethren bore the hell out of everyone, Mormons included, so Peterson's role is played mightily by himself. It has never been about showing the superiority of Mormonism, he can't. So he just says it's so, and the believers believe what he says, exactly like Trump's followers do with him. Peterson is the Mormon Trump for his audience.

DCP to Gemli wrote:You might be surprised at the way actual substance can affect a conversation.

So, if the Mormons merely dislike the substance, it magically ceases to be substance?

I would like to be pointed in the direction of any commenter on Sic et Non who consistently posts more and/or better substance than gemli.

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:04 am

DCP to Gemli wrote:You might be surprised at the way actual substance can affect a conversation.

So, if the Mormons merely dislike the substance, it magically ceases to be substance?

I would like to be pointed in the direction of any commenter on Sic et Non who consistently posts more and/or better substance than gemli.

I 2nd this motion. However, they would just then say we put all our substance into The Interpreter, a "scholarly” journal that has not missed a weekly article contribution for gazillions of weeks in a row now, thus demonstrating we are full of it.... erm, that we have substance - Checkmate Dr. Shades...

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 21, 2024 1:13 pm

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:04 am

So, if the Mormons merely dislike the substance, it magically ceases to be substance?

I would like to be pointed in the direction of any commenter on Sic et Non who consistently posts more and/or better substance than gemli.

I 2nd this motion. However, they would just then say we put all our substance into The Interpreter, a "scholarly” journal that has not missed a weekly article contribution for gazillions of weeks in a row now, thus demonstrating we are full of it.... erm, that we have substance - Checkmate Dr. Shades...

As Robert Boylan loves to say, Interpreter is just “gish gallop.”

drumdude wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 21, 2024 2:20 pm

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 21, 2024 1:13 pm

I 2nd this motion. However, they would just then say we put all our substance into The Interpreter, a "scholarly” journal that has not missed a weekly article contribution for gazillions of weeks in a row now, thus demonstrating we are full of it.... erm, that we have substance - Checkmate Dr. Shades...

As Robert Boylan loves to say, Interpreter is just “gish gallop.”

Or cad swallow...

I smile at the idea that a blog is all about substance. Or that the comments section of a blog is conducive to substantive discussions.

...Or that the comments section of a blog is conducive to substantive discussions.

Given his past as a celebrated NYTimes commenter, I see gemli's contributions more as performance art.

If I recall correctly, he started up at patheos because he thought the proprietor's performance art in the form of his "Christopher Hitchens Memorial “How Religion Poisons Everything” Files" needed a response.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 1:12 pm

I smile at the idea that a blog is all about substance. Or that the comments section of a blog is conducive to substantive discussions.

He has an open invitation to discuss here. He never takes it.

drumdude wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 9:50 pm

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 22, 2024 1:12 pm

I smile at the idea that a blog is all about substance. Or that the comments section of a blog is conducive to substantive discussions.

He has an open invitation to discuss here. He never takes it.

This is very important actually. He never takes it because he can't take it. His ego will NEVER allow him to agree or admit anyone has a point against any of his apologetics points, even if they are church members themselves. Peterson is always about being always correct, period. He cannot admit he is ever wrong on anything which he defends in scripture as if he alone has the total truth. I feel sorry for him. It is why he doesn't actually engage in discussion, that might mean someone makes a point against his point and his testimony would come crashing down. Therefore we see him doing the only thing he does so well, mocks and derides all others who disagree with him. He has become a pathetic bore, and at one point, I think he actually had a chance to make some significant contributions.