The Book of Mormon: Man-Made or God-Given?

[_SteelHead]

Wow, the guy who says it is up to us to show the Book of Mormon untrue is now correctly applying the burden.


He can be taught.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Let's review the evolution of our exchanges.

MG's original claim to which I inquired in blue.

MG: There is no contradiction between any of these 'cut and paste' quotes I've made during this thread. No intellectual dishonesty. Nothing disingenuous.

<snip>

Inquiry:

Jersey Girl: Explain for the class how the exchanges do not represent intellectual dishonesty, please.

<snip>

That is a stupid question to ask. It is a very stupid question to ask. It is an insanely stupid question to ask.

If he believes that what he has posted is NOT intellectually dishonest, and you think that it IS, the burden is on you to shown him WHY IT IS, not on him to show you WHY IT IS NOT. If you think that what he has posted is intellectually dishonest, you first explain to him why you think it is, and then he will be able to counter it by explaining to you why it isn't. That is the way it works, not the other way.

So, just to jump on SteelHead's point, Zerinus. You would agree if someone is asserting something the burden of proof is on them?

- Doc

[_zerinus]

So, just to jump on SteelHead's point, Zerinus. You would agree if someone is asserting something the burden of proof is on them?

- Doc

More stupid questions, on top of more stupid questions.

When you accuse somebody of something, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

It looks like stupidity and idiocy knows no bounds round here.

[_Jersey Girl]

Let's review the evolution of our exchanges.

MG's original claim to which I inquired in blue.

MG: There is no contradiction between any of these 'cut and paste' quotes I've made during this thread. No intellectual dishonesty. Nothing disingenuous.

<snip>

Inquiry:

Jersey Girl: Explain for the class how the exchanges do not represent intellectual dishonesty, please.

<snip>

That is a stupid question to ask. It is a very stupid question to ask. It is an insanely stupid question to ask.

If he believes that what he has posted is NOT intellectually dishonest, and you think that it IS, the burden is on you to shown him WHY IT IS, not on him to show you WHY IT IS NOT. If you think that what he has posted is intellectually dishonest, you first explain to him why you think it is, and then he will be able to counter it by explaining to you why it isn't. That is the way it works, not the other way.

Do you need a teacher? Let's start with reading comprehension.

Nowhere in my exchanges with MG have I accused him of being intellectually dishonest. That is to say, I have made no claim whatsoever. That is to say, your nonsense about burden of proof is irrelevant absent claim on my part.

What I have done, is make inquiry about one of HIS claims. I asked him a simple question to which there is an answer.

Pay close attention here, zerinus, because it's going to get complicated for you because you're going to have to read and think at the same time. Just try to follow along.

I asked him to explain how the exchanges that were used as examples of why people think he's intellectually dishonest did NOT represent intellectual dishonesty.

Here's where it's going to get tough for you so just read this next bit over and over again until you yourself arrive at an answer, okay?

What would he need to know in order to answer the question?

Come on, zerinus, I know you can come up with the answer to that if you think about it long enough. Try really, really, hard. Hint: His lack of knowledge about it has been mentioned several times on this lengthy thread.

[_mentalgymnast]

Anyone going to come to Lemmie's defense at this point and put me in my place?

Are you saying that you need assistance to avoid answering the question that I posed to you? Boy, this could take longer than we thought huh?

Not really. I have no interest in talking to you unless you have something to contribute in regards to the topic of the thread. My issue is with Lemmie.

My interest is in showing that Lemmie has falsely accused me of being intellectually dishonest by creating a false narrative. She has failed to return and show how my post up thread shows/demonstrates intellectual dishonesty or disingenuousness. I am not interested in the 'flak' that you are throwing up. It is simply that, flak.

She has been caught red handed and flat footed in a BIG LIE and I have called her out on it.

All you're really accomplishing/attempting to do...albeit not very successfully...is to bury what I said up thread and make something else the matter of YOUR concern. But it's not mine. The issue here is that Lemmie accused me of being intellectually dishonest and created a false narrative in order to do so. I've called her out on it and she is simply evading my request to use my words within the post in question to show that she is correct...rather than mistaken...in the accusation that she made against my personal integrity.

I am hoping to have Lemmie return and defend herself against the serious accusation that I am now making against her. I have called her a liar. Her sense of integrity should prompt her to respond with something other than a non-response and/or avoidance of my request.

Folks can go back and look at stuff in context to see whether or not I have a 'bone to pick'.

We can end this derail. But I will NOT stand for being falsely accused of something that I was not guilty of.

Regards,
MG

[_Jersey Girl]

So, just to jump on SteelHead's point, Zerinus. You would agree if someone is asserting something the burden of proof is on them?

- Doc

More stupid questions, on top of more stupid questions.

When you accuse somebody of something, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

It looks like stupidity and idiocy knows no bounds round here.

I defy you to locate and post the claim or accusation that you think I have made in the question that I posed to him.

No really, go ahead and find it. I have all day.

[_spotlight]

So, just to jump on SteelHead's point, Zerinus. You would agree if someone is asserting something the burden of proof is on them?

- Doc

More stupid questions, on top of more stupid questions.

When you accuse somebody of something, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

It looks like stupidity and idiocy knows no bounds round here.

So then the Mormon religion which accuses mankind of being fallen and in need of redemption from sin has the burden of proof. Thanks.

[_mentalgymnast]

If he believes that what he has posted is NOT intellectually dishonest, and you think that it IS, the burden is on you to shown him WHY IT IS, not on him to show you WHY IT IS NOT. If you think that what he has posted is intellectually dishonest, you first explain to him why you think it is, and then he will be able to counter it by explaining to you why it isn't. That is the way it works, not the other way.[/color]

Yup.

Regards,
MG

[_Jersey Girl]

Anyone going to come to Lemmie's defense at this point and put me in my place?

Are you saying that you need assistance to avoid answering the question that I posed to you? Boy, this could take longer than we thought huh?

Not really. I have no interest in talking to you unless you have something to contribute in regards to the topic of the thread. My issue is with Lemmie.



She has been caught red handed and flat footed in a BIG LIE and I have called her out on it.

All you're really accomplishing/attempting to do...albeit not very successfully...is to bury what I said up thread and make something else the matter of YOUR concern. But it's not mine. The issue here is that Lemmie accused me of being intellectually dishonest and created a false narrative in order to do so. I've called her out on it and she is simply evading my request to use my words within the post in question to show that she is correct...rather than mistaken...in the accusation that she made against my personal integrity.

I am hoping to have Lemmie return and defend herself against the serious accusation that I am now making against her. I have called her a liar. Her sense of integrity should prompt her to respond with something other than a non-response and/or avoidance of my request.

Folks can go back and look at stuff in context to see whether or not I have a 'bone to pick'.

We can end this derail. But I will NOT stand for being falsely accused of something that I was not guilty of.

Regards,
MG

If you have no interest in talking to me, then why are you talking to me in multiple paragraphs no less?

[_mentalgymnast]

I notice that no one has come to Lemmie's defense.

Regards,
MG