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

[_mentalgymnast]

Just more running around hyperventilating, and not addressing anything of substance with substance. Gotcha. Carry on carrying the Church's water 'centrist'.

- Doc

And here we have Doc blah, blah, blah-ing himself into a state of Nirvanic bliss.

Hi Doc. Hope you're having a nice day.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

My thinking...especially from what I've encountered recently...is that there are those in these parts that are intellectually dishonest because of the fact that they are accountable to no one besides themselves.

No, that has nothing to do with one expressing oneself in an intellectually honest manner. Please read ihaq's quote again.

I, of course, am going to be susceptible to claims of intellectual dishonesty and the sort when my opinions are colluding with the dogmatic beliefs of folks like you (?) who are heavily invested in their own set of beliefs and/or lack thereof.

No, your intellectual dishonesty is how you post, the term intellectual dishonesty has nothing at all to do with a specific opinion or position. Please look it up, you are throwing the phrase around in an embarrassingly uneducated way now that is quite pitiful.

Are you being intellectually honest when you are unwilling to accept the 'hand of God' in the production of the Book of Mormon because you believe that

Same as before, the definition of intellectual dishonesty IN NO WAY involves being "unwilling to accept the hand of God," or any other opinion. It is how you express your opinions that is the issue. Please, before you embarrass yourself further, just look at ihaq's links, or at a minimum, a dictionary.

You never responded...at least I don't think you did...to my post the other day where I caught you in an other example of 'making stuff up'. Your non-response (after at least a couple of times requesting you to do so) seems, at least to me, acknowledgement that you were 'guilty as charged'.

This is ridiculous. Again, someone expressing an opinion that you disagree with is not that person "making stuff up." And you would be the only person on the planet to believe that ihaq's refusal to respond to your nonsense constitutes acknowledgement of guilt. Please. Grow up.

You could be as intellectually dishonest as the stars are to the sky and we wouldn't really be able to discern it.

Further evidence that mentalgymnast has no idea what he is talking about.

Say....something like and/or comparable the flagrant use of false narrative that we saw from Lemmie earlier?

Did you learn nothing from honorentheos' post?

I stated my opinion and I backed my argument with quotes from you. If you disagree, feel free to explain yourself.

If you have a problem with a concept in my post, then feel free to write a post addressing that concept.

Otherwise, stop trolling.

[_Jersey Girl]

What I see is that you have not answered the question that I posed to you. That's part of your spectacle.

I don’t believe you are interested in the answer to anything;

And you can tell that by the number of times I've pressed for an answer, right?

neither are you interested in establishing the truth or falsehood of anything.

Establishing truth or falsehood of anything has no relevance to the question that I posed. If you're going to try to engage me, zerinus, read the exchanges so you know what you're talking about because it's obvious that you don't.

You just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

No. I just want an answer to the question I posed.

[Guest]

dupe

[Guest]

Would you like to point out an example of intellectual dishonesty...on my part...in this thread, for example? There are a whole lot of pages to choose from.

Why bother? It obviously wouldn't do any good if I did.

Say...something like and/or comparable the flagrant use of false narrative that we saw from Lemmie earlier?

Regards,
MG

I saw nothing in anything Lemmie wrote (including what you quoted) that could rationally be construed as a deliberately false narrative or intellectually dishonest.

What I find most intellectually dishonest and insufferably arrogant is the idea that subjective faith in something based on nothing more than claims of divine inspiration somehow Trump's any amount of contrary evidence and sound reason. See my signature line. Given the countless number of mutually contradictory precepts and belief systems based on that approach, it is safe to conclude that no approach to discerning truth is or can be more unreliable than that one. I and others discussed this topic rather exhaustively on the first thread I ever started on this forum. see viewtopic.php?f=3&t=25288.

Regards,
Gunnar

[_mentalgymnast]

Would you like to point out an example of intellectual dishonesty...on my part...in this thread, for example? There are a whole lot of pages to choose from.

Why bother? It obviously wouldn't do any good if I did.

Chicken.

Say...something like and/or comparable the flagrant use of false narrative that we saw from Lemmie earlier?

I saw nothing in anything Lemmie wrote (including what you quoted) that could rationally be construed as a deliberately false narrative or intellectually dishonest.
Gunnar

That does not surprise me. The the post in question was posted multiple times(not hard to find) and I asked her to show, using my words, where I had been intellectually dishonest and disingenuous. She was unable to do so. She even resorted to simply throwing up the Troll!! sign.

I would ask you that rather than simply saying, "I saw nothing", that you go back and show what you DID see that would demonstrate/show that I had been dishonest and/or disingenuous within the post in question. That really should be easy.

Although, truth be told, we've been beating this dead horse over and over again. To no avail.That is, on the part of those that would like to prove intellectual dishonesty. No one came to her defense...although there was a lot of flak being thrown up.

You want to do it at this point...with proof?

Regards,
MG

[_Jersey Girl]

IHAQ, I'm at a disadvantage here because...as I mentioned to Gunnar...I'm under the microscope. YOU AREN"T...as are most of the other posters here.

Well guess what? You can't pull that martyr stuff with me, buddy, so ditch the crying towel. What you are missing is that many or most here, have put themselves and their thinking under the microscope, or as in my case, allowed myself to be subjected to the microscope when I realized that could learn from it and learn to think critically, evaluating my own thinking and the thinking of others.

You spend so much time deflecting here that you don't open yourself up to learning because you choose to defend rather than choose to grow. That's exactly the whole truth of it. You're on automatic reflex to the point where at least half the time you aren't responding directly to what folks have presented you with.

[_Jersey Girl]

That does not surprise me. The the post in question was posted multiple times(not hard to find) and I asked her to show, using my words, where I had been intellectually dishonest and disingenuous. She was unable to do so. She even resorted to simply throwing up the Troll!! sign.

That's not how it happened. She made her post to which you replied with claims of denial, when I asked (responding to one of your claims) you how your comments that she copied did NOT represent intellectual dishonesty, that's when you decided to avoid my request and that's when you chose to call her out and stubbornly refused to answer my question because it put you on the spot.

If you disagree that the question I posed didn't put you on the spot, then answer it.

[_Jersey Girl]

That does not surprise me. The the post in question was posted multiple times(not hard to find) and I asked her to show, using my words, where I had been intellectually dishonest and disingenuous. She was unable to do so. She even resorted to simply throwing up the Troll!! sign.

That's not how it happened. She made her post to which you replied with claims of denial, when I asked (responding to one of your claims) you how your comments that she copied did NOT represent intellectual dishonesty, that's when you decided to avoid my request and that's when you chose to call her out and stubbornly refused to answer my question because it put you on the spot.

If you disagree that the question I posed didn't put you on the spot, then answer it.

[_mentalgymnast]

If you have a problem with a concept in my post, then feel free to write a post addressing that concept.

Otherwise, stop trolling.

The evidence was/is there to see. No one came...and has not to this point...come to your defense with any proof that you had not committed an egregious/obvious example of creating a false narrative. You simply avoided my request to go back to the post in question and show that I had been intellectually dishonest and disingenuous in any way, shape, or form. We've been down this road enough. The evidence is there for all to see.

I can sleep when the wind blows.

Can you?

Any further posts that you create and/or fabricate so that you can simply 'tack on' your flimsy and unwarranted use of "Intellectually Dishonest!!", will now be seen by me(and I would hope, others) as the lie that it is.

You have demonstrated your willingness to do so in the past...I would contend you will/would do so in the future.

Time to throw up the troll sign?

Regards,
MG