I miss DCP

[_Corpsegrinder]

True. I was hyperbolizing again.

Let me apologize in advance for a bit of hyperbole of my own: Being the apologist-in-chief for Mormonism is a bit like being the lead defense attorney for Charles Manson. As such, DCP--along with every other apologist--is going to be a cow pie magnet; it’s a fact of life. The fact that he hung around for as long as he did demonstrates that he understands this simple fact. It’s wrong to assume that he left this forum simply because people began throwing cow pies at him.

IMHO, he left for the same reason why several other TBM’s have recently left: strident apologists rarely come out on top when pitted against equally strident rationalists and empiricists. This is why he--and they--have restricted their online activity to heavily moderated environments like Mormon Dialog. His--and their--departure to friendly ground is essentially a tactical retreat.

The fact that people were throwing cow pies at him has little to do with it. DCP, after all, threw plenty of cow pies of his own. He gave as good as he got.

Do I miss him? Sure I do, because even Charlie Manson deserves his day in court.

[_moksha]

Do I miss him? Sure I do, because even Charlie Manson deserves his day in court.

Bad way of looking at this situation. It would be much better to regard him as the head of the loyal opposition and accord him respect while agreeing to disagree. Likewise for Dr. Peterson, others would also become the loyal opposition instead of being perceived as a virulent strain of critics. Win-win.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Yes, I suppose you’re right; equating DCP with Charlie Manson’s defense attorney is laying it on a bit thick. And yes, it would be better for all involved if NOMs and TBMs could agree to disagree, but they--we--can’t. The Church has always been less than accommodating to the idea of a “loyal opposition”.

[_subgenius]

Let me apologize in advance for a bit of hyperbole of my own:

the sincerity of one's apology is often in question when it precedes an intentional act. To be remorseful and/or regretful about the future is certainly a conundrum for an atheist; how do you reconcile such an act? rationally of course.

Being the apologist-in-chief for Mormonism is a bit like being the lead defense attorney for Charles Manson.

i am sure this analogy has some sort of meaning in your mind. I can only assume that the apologist counseling an atheist is like Karnarek(or Hughes?) counseling Manson.

As such, DCP--along with every other apologist--is going to be a cow pie magnet; it’s a fact of life.

especially when all they have to throw is cow-pies....which seems to be the substance in most of the throwers' posts.

The fact that he hung around for as long as he did demonstrates that he understands this simple fact.

that is one possible conclusion, but a self-imposed martyrdom seems unlikely.

It’s wrong to assume that he left this forum simply because people began throwing cow pies at him.

por que no? It seems more likely that such an assault would be the reason. It is more conceivable that one grows weary of incessant behavior and abandons the situation.

IMHO,

the internet precursor for condescending comments

he left for the same reason why several other TBM’s have recently left:

cause you would know?

strident apologists rarely come out on top when pitted against equally strident rationalists and empiricists.

sez you. Is the "coming out on top" a determination you make, or is it made by others who agree with you?....cause i think i may be able to offer some insight on your delusion here.

This is why he--and they--have restricted their online activity to heavily moderated environments like Mormon Dialog. His--and their--departure to friendly ground is essentially a tactical retreat.

what is the "tactic" then? because militarily a "tactical retreat" is used in response to a surprise attack - a means to survive, re-group, and then counterattack. Quite often leaving the path of retreat unusable for any advancement by the enemy. Sometimes it is "tactical" in that it leads the enemy forward into a larger assault or "trap". The "tactical" aspect is that it is intended to cause as much damage to the enemy as possible....your argument seems to contradict your own conclusion here....shocking! <-----note sarcasm

The fact that people were throwing cow pies at him has little to do with it. DCP, after all, threw plenty of cow pies of his own. He gave as good as he got.

nostalgic.....interesting.

Do I miss him? Sure I do, because even Charlie Manson deserves his day in court.

at least worse analogies have been typed. But the analogy here for Manson's lawyer is like the Barry Scheck effect....it just lowers expectations. But i appreciate the truth in the assumption that you are apparently on the "prosecution" side of the room.

[_Buffalo]

I don't really miss him. Nothing against him personally, but he didn't really contribute anything to any discussions.

[_DrW]

More than any other apologist, DCP used this board to draw attention to his other apologetic endeavors, most of which are conducted in environments where they are protected from criticisms or opposing views.

When challenged on severe lapses in his published work, his claim to being a rational empiricist, and other questionable assertions in fairly rapid succession, he simply quite the field.

One cannot expect to continually promote oneself, while refusing to engage in meaningful discussions or even defense of one's stated position, without drawing fire for such behavior.

The fact that DCP now choses to practice his apologetics only in protected environments, and for the benefit of believers, says a lot about the strength or importance of his positions in the open market of ideas. The fact that Mormon apologetics is not taken seriously by anyone except Mormons, (and I would venture to say by fewer of those each year) is an indication of the value of DCP's work.

This attribute of most apologists and their "work" is one that I point out to TBMs at every opportunity. Sometimes they "get it" and sometimes they don't. For those who do, it definitely constitutes an item (and additional weight) on the shelf.

I will admit that it was amusing to see what he would come up with next while he was here, but I do not believe that his leaving has adversely affected the value or interest in the MDB.

If there are folks who just can't live without DCP's brand of apologetics, he can be found holding court on other boards where his special brand of apologetic obfuscation and dodging of the tough issues can be dispensed without opposition (and in some cases, apparently without notice).

[_harmony]

The fact that DCP now choses to practice his apologetics only in protected environments, and for the benefit of believers, says a lot about the strength or importance of his positions in the open market of ideas. The fact that Mormon apologetics is not taken seriously by anyone except Mormons, (and I would venture to say by fewer of those each year) is an indication of the value of DCP's work.

a few points:

1. as far as the church is concerned, there is no open market of ideas. There is the truth that they possess, and everything else.

2. Mormons are taken quite seriously by lots of people. Otherwise Mitt's membership wouldn't be of interest at all. Most people, Mormons and not, don't know what Mormon apologetics is about.

This attribute of most apologists and their "work" is one that I point out to TBMs at every opportunity. Sometimes they "get it" and sometimes they don't. For those who do, it definitely constitutes an item (and additional weight) on the shelf.

Getting it is optional, in my experience.

I will admit that it was amusing to see what he would come up with next while he was here, but I do not believe that his leaving has adversely affected the value or interest in the MDB.

If there are folks who just can't live without DCP's brand of apologetics, he can be found holding court on other boards where his special brand of apologetic obfuscation and dodging of the tough issues can be dispensed without opposition (and in some cases, apparently without notice).

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that everyone is valuable here... everyone. And we are less when we lose people.

[_jon]

You know what they say about less...

[_Doctor Scratch]

He hasn't really "left." He still neurotically obsessed with this board and its participants. Just recently he posted an item on the MDD board that appears to be an attack on DrW. So he's still watching--still, in his own way, "participating." So long as he continues to make "announcements" (and in this case the "announcement" seemed more like a pretext for taking a swipe at a critic), he's still going to be enmeshed in the Matrix. If he keeps this sort of thing up, he'll be back to either posting here, or to regularly lobbing bombs from MDD, before the year is up.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Subgenius wrote:

the sincerity of one's apology is often in question when it precedes an intentional act. To be remorseful and/or regretful about the future is certainly a conundrum for an atheist; how do you reconcile such an act? rationally of course.

i am sure this analogy has some sort of meaning in your mind. I can only assume that the apologist counseling an atheist is like Karnarek(or Hughes?) counseling Manson.

Strictly speaking, I’m not an atheist.

especially when all they have to throw is cow-pies....which seems to be the substance in most of the throwers' posts.

Uh…no. I would refer you, for example, to a recent thread in which MrStak takes DCP to task regarding his misuse of quoted material. Use the search function.

that is one possible conclusion, but a self-imposed martyrdom seems unlikely.

Wrong paradigm. We’re talking retreat, not martyrdom.

por que no? It seems more likely that such an assault would be the reason. It is more conceivable that one grows weary of incessant behavior and abandons the situation.

Who’s “incessant behavior” are you referring to? Any examples?

the internet precursor for condescending comments

On the contrary, IMHO is the internet abbreviation for In My Humble Opinion…or were you trying to make a point?

he left for the same reason why several other TBM’s have recently left:
cause you would know?

Yes, as a matter of fact I would.

sez you. Is the "coming out on top" a determination you make, or is it made by others who agree with you?....cause i think i may be able to offer some insight on your delusion here.

In point of fact DCP, BH Roberts, J Reuben Clark, and others have made statements to the effect that Mormonism is not amenable to proof or falsification in the manner of mathematical theorems and physical laws. J. Reuben Clark even went so far as to say that religion (as opposed to atheism) is not logically defensible. DCP posted a similar statement in the Celestial forum approximately a year ago.

what is the "tactic" then? because militarily a "tactical retreat" is used in response to a surprise attack - a means to survive, re-group, and then counterattack. Quite often leaving the path of retreat unusable for any advancement by the enemy. Sometimes it is "tactical" in that it leads the enemy forward into a larger assault or "trap". The "tactical" aspect is that it is intended to cause as much damage to the enemy as possible....your argument seems to contradict your own conclusion here....shocking! <-----note sarcasm

This, surprisingly, sums up my position rather well...with the exception of everything after the word “counterattack”.

How do Mormonism’s defenders propose to “counterattack” when they’re in retreat on all fronts? Consider the ever-shrinking footprint of Book of Mormon geography. Consider the scholarly embarrassment of the Book of Abraham. Consider the fact that current Prophets and Apostles no longer claim a personal witness of Jesus Christ. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

at least worse analogies have been typed. But the analogy here for Manson's lawyer is like the Barry Scheck effect....it just lowers expectations. But i appreciate the truth in the assumption that you are apparently on the "prosecution" side of the room.

I can only assume you refer to Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project, in which case the effect would be to raise the bar. DCP could certainly learn a thing or two from Barry Scheck.