Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
The material below seems to me to get it about right.
Maybe this thread could stop now, in the interests of the human race retaining a few shreds of credibility as being an intelligent life-form, should any aliens be monitoring this board ... ?
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:So. What have we learned from the thread?
MG doesn't think anything in the Book of Mormon is untrue.
MG realizes Jacob 5 is an anachronism. How he squares that the above is a mystery.
MG learned a lot from other things.
MG thinks an angel did it. Or something.
MG is a hardliner who says he's a centrist because he says it.
MG can spend 20+ pages talking about feelings but can't be bothered to answer direct questions in any sort of detail probably because there's nothing there.
Zerinus know more than anyone because feelings.
Zerinus didn't know Joseph Smith attempted to sell the copyright.
Zerinus can't answer questions without resorting to an insult and a testimony.
Elder Callister has a superficial understanding of the Book of Mormon's production, at best. Most likely he believes the correlated version with some FAIRpologia sprinkled in.
Let me know if I missed anything, and thank you for helping me pass the time while working in the private sector to make other people wealthy.
- Doc
We've learned a couple more things from this thread now that it's evolved a bit:
- MG thinks God collaborated with Joseph Smith through the iStone to write the Book of Mormon allowing for anachronisms and linguistic misfires. Or something.
- MG thinks inverting the argument is a legitimate debating style.
- MG continues to successfully avoid on-topic discussion and makes every thread about himself rather than the topic because he's evolved so much and is very 'centrist'.
To the casual observer you'll note the staunch Mormon apologist hasn't successfully argued any pro-Mormon position, has thrown around some other people's wacky theories, can't talk to the critics points intelligibly, and derails various threads with rinse-and-repeat assertions that are essentially summed up as: I believe and I feel it's true.
- Doc
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Jersey Girl wrote:Nowhere in my posts to him have I asked him to prove that he is not intellectually dishonest.
Here is one:
Jersey Girl wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:There is no contradiction between any of these 'cut and paste' quotes I've made during this thread. No intellectual dishonesty. Nothing disingenuous.
Saying so doesn't make it so.
Thanks, however, for giving some of my thoughts expressed earlier the additional 'limelight' they deserve.
Facetious mode kicking in...
Happy Easter, MG
Explain for the class how the exchanges do not represent intellectual dishonesty, please.
The implication is that you believe his exchanges were intellectually dishonest, and you are asking him to prove otherwise.
Jersey Girl wrote:Oh I see. The whole lecture you pumped out to me about burden of proof wasn't really about me. I get it now.
Almost.
Wrong, it is about you. When you insist that he prove to you that he is not intellectually dishonest, the implication is that he is, unless he proves otherwise.
Jersey Girl wrote:Nowhere in my posts to him have I asked him to prove that he is not intellectually dishonest.
Here is one:
Jersey Girl wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:There is no contradiction between any of these 'cut and paste' quotes I've made during this thread. No intellectual dishonesty. Nothing disingenuous.
Saying so doesn't make it so.
Thanks, however, for giving some of my thoughts expressed earlier the additional 'limelight' they deserve.
Facetious mode kicking in...
Happy Easter, MG
Explain for the class how the exchanges do not represent intellectual dishonesty, please.
zerinus wrote:The implication is that you believe his exchanges were intellectually dishonest, and you are asking him to prove otherwise.
Oh now I see what you're getting at. First you say I made a claim that didn't exist which placed burden of proof on me, but it didn't because I made no claim. Now it's "implication" and "belief" when it's a question.
Look up "inquiry" and get back to me.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Jersey Girl wrote:Oh I see. The whole lecture you pumped out to me about burden of proof wasn't really about me. I get it now.
Almost.
Wrong, it is about you. When you insist that he prove to you that he is not intellectually dishonest, the implication is that he is, unless he proves otherwise.
So the lecture about burden of proof about making a claim or accusation wasn't really about me because I made no claim nor accusation, but now it's about me again.
I never once asked him to prove that he is not intellectually dishonest. I never once asked him to prove anything.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
