The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Fibber clearly hasn’t laid eyes on that thread. To claim it supports Book of Mormon historicity in any shape or form, proves that Fibber isn't just misinformed, he's profoundly delusional.

[Rivendale]

That's about as epic of a takedown of the "witnesses" that I've seen.

Yes it was. Kudos to Analytics.

Lol...I wrote that. But it gets worse. Here is the ultimate retreat in that thread. It is what all Mormon apologetics fall back on.

That's interesting. I acknowledge the evidence is curated and intentionally limited in a number of ways. There is no doubt about that. As to how "deeply suspicious" that fact is, well that depends on the variety of possible reasons that a divine being might want to curate evidence. If the point is to give some substantial reason to begin to have faith, without compelling belief, then the curation transforms from deeply suspicious to quite expected. If the curated evidence isn't "deeply suspicious" based on the explanatory framework and assumptions of the opposing theory, then all of a sudden that data point becomes non-evidence.

[Marcus]

Yes it was. Kudos to Analytics.

Lol...I wrote that.

I see, you wrote the part about slam dunks. I was talking about Analytics' post.

But it gets worse. Here is the ultimate retreat in that thread. It is what all Mormon apologetics fall back on.

That's interesting. I acknowledge the evidence is curated and intentionally limited in a number of ways. There is no doubt about that. As to how "deeply suspicious" that fact is, well that depends on the variety of possible reasons that a divine being might want to curate evidence. If the point is to give some substantial reason to begin to have faith, without compelling belief, then the curation transforms from deeply suspicious to quite expected. If the curated evidence isn't "deeply suspicious" based on the explanatory framework and assumptions of the opposing theory, then all of a sudden that data point becomes non-evidence.

Wow. That's convenient. So if evidence is good, it's good, but if evidence is not good, it's still good because maybe a supernatural being wanted it that way. Right.

[Rivendale]

He wasn't taken to the woodshed. He was performing uncontested slam dunks.

That's about as epic of a takedown of the "witnesses" that I've seen.

Why are you quoting from someone who didn't say it?

[Gadianton]

Why are you quoting from someone who didn't say it?

Mistake? fixed.

[Limnor]

Wow. That's convenient. So if evidence is good, it's good, but if evidence is not good, it's still good because maybe a supernatural being wanted it that way. Right.

Right. Heads I win, tails I also win, but for different reasons. I’d call it clever but really it’s just a way to make evidence optional.

[Marcus]

I thought this from Smac gave a lot of insight into an LDS apologist's frame of mind:

...I think you come here to argue against the Church because you previously believed as we do, then you went out from us, because you are angry at the institutional Church and its teachings about same-sex behavior and marriage, and instead of "investing" time and money and effort in building up the Church, you "invest" in justifications and rationalizations for your departure. You don't want the Church to be what it claims to be. You are invested in and committed to that narrative...

Interesting. I enjoy conversations here and reading online about various topics, including the LDS ones, but I don't give LDS apologetic issues a single thought or speak about them in the rest of my life (other than to occasionally amuse my spouse, who is still quite incredulous that people live like that on purpose).

I'm not "angry" at an institution nor do I feel any need to justify or rationalize my departure. I don't want anything from the Mormon church as it simply has no place any longer in my everyday life, or in my family's lives. I like coming here and learning and talking about the religion in which I was raised, but there is no doubt for me at all that it started as a con, and has no validity as a 'true church.'

Reading things like the above from Smac just shows to me how hard he has to work to maintain the exterior he tries to portray. He seems driven to lash out at people who believe differently. Given the wide range of beliefs that coexist peacefully in my family and non-LDS extended family now, it's just shocking that there are people who hate and express disgust at other human beings, simply over discussions about beliefs. It seems pointless.

It took a while for me to get to this place, almost exclusively because of how hateful Mormons in my family were when I left. If they only knew the damage their insistence that things and thoughts outweigh human relationships does. Or maybe they do and don't care, who knows. I found my way out of that life, and raised my children entirely outside of it, which gives me great comfort and satisfaction. I put my family on a different path. That's all that matters.

Smac seems incapable of simply discussing a topic without including his disdain and anger at those who believe differently. What a horrible way to live.

[Rivendale]

I thought this from Smac gave a lot of insight into an LDS apologist's frame of mind:

...I think you come here to argue against the Church because you previously believed as we do, then you went out from us, because you are angry at the institutional Church and its teachings about same-sex behavior and marriage, and instead of "investing" time and money and effort in building up the Church, you "invest" in justifications and rationalizations for your departure. You don't want the Church to be what it claims to be. You are invested in and committed to that narrative...

Interesting. I enjoy conversations here and reading online about various topics, including the LDS ones, but I don't give LDS apologetic issues a single thought or speak about them in the rest of my life (other than to occasionally amuse my spouse, who is still quite incredulous that people live like that on purpose).

I'm not "angry" at an institution nor do I feel any need to justify or rationalize my departure. I don't want anything from the Mormon church as it simply has no place any longer in my everyday life, or in my family's lives. I like coming here and learning and talking about the religion in which I was raised, but there is no doubt for me at all that it started as a con, and has no validity as a 'true church.'

Reading things like the above from Smac just shows to me how hard he has to work to maintain the exterior he tries to portray. He seems driven to lash out at people who believe differently. Given the wide range of beliefs that coexist peacefully in my family and non-LDS extended family now, it's just shocking that there are people who hate and express disgust at other human beings, simply over discussions about beliefs. It seems pointless.

It took a while for me to get to this place, almost exclusively because of how hateful Mormons in my family were when I left. If they only knew the damage their insistence that things and thoughts outweigh human relationships does. Or maybe they do and don't care, who knows. I found my way out of that life, and raised my children entirely outside of it, which gives me great comfort and satisfaction. I put my family on a different path. That's all that matters.

Smac seems incapable of simply discussing a topic without including his disdain and anger at those who believe differently. What a horrible way to live.

Believers have the advantage as of today.

And I suppose that makes sense to me, on a certain level. We all have to prioritize what lines of evidence are most appealing to us. But I think it needs to be admitted that this is what is happening. Believers actually have the upper hand when you view this evidence on its own terms, without the a priori skepticism and other lines of evidence tipping the scales. We have remarkable supporting testimonial data. We have the better and more immediate sources. And we have the most parsimonious explanation. It's just that this line of evidence, as significant as it may be, isn't enough to overcome the other reasons that people have to reject Smith's claims

[Limnor]

Parsimonious? A more parsimonious explanation is that the text reflects an autobiographical or 19th-century composition rather than an ancient record. The simpler explanation doesn’t require additional assumptions like angels taking the plates back, translation via stones in hats with no requirement for the plates, or missing things like horses or DNA.

Parsimonious heh

[Rivendale]

Parsimonious? A more parsimonious explanation is that the text reflects an autobiographical or 19th-century composition rather than an ancient record. The simpler explanation doesn’t require additional assumptions like angels taking the plates back, translation via stones in hats with no requirement for the plates, or missing things like horses or DNA.

Parsimonious heh

The standard position is angels and the supernatural is disregarded thereby creating a counter apologists narrative. The constant clamor by smac is that no naturalistic explanation can connect all the dots their supernatural narrative can.