Three Powerful Books

[_mentalgymnast]

It seems you don't believe facts serve any purpose other than to confirm a bias. If that's wrong, explain how you see evidence working to overcome a bias.

Hey honor, my playtime here is over for now. We have family coming into visit soon. They’re flying in from Missouri. If and when I see there’s anything more that I can add to the conversation I will return.

Thanks for playing.

This thread has been going on a while. :rolleyes:

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

If that’s what they indeed are. But then there’s the interpretation of those facts. And our own conditioning...and illusions...that impact those interpretations.

Gets a bit messy.

that's an extremely concerning statement to make. I sense a non-believer struggling with expectations. My empathies.

[_Themis]

Believer...Non Believer. The same psychology is at play. It does work both ways. Mere-exposure effect and Illusory truth effect have taken you to where you’re at.

Regards,
MG

You are really getting desperate. This is just another version of former believers just wanted to disbelief or sin. Members who come across evidence against LDS truth claims and recognize they might be a problem if true are not being influenced by mere exposure. They already have strong bias to believe LDS truth claims which they still have far more exposure to and a preference to believe. They also tend to look for answers from LDS friendly sources to explain how the particular evidence/fact is incorrect or being misinterpreted. What's ironic is apologetic materials shows much of these facts as being true. Gadianton's post really shows how illogical your thinking is.

What's funny is you link to a site claiming 5 pieces of evidence where 3 don't even qualify as evidence for Book of Mormon historicity. The other two are huge stretches many apologists don't agree with. Interesting you cannot come up with one piece of evidence that members can all agree on, where many pieces of evidence against are consistently agreed on by non-believers as well as some believers. It really does not go both ways. It's very one-sided.

[_honorentheos]

It seems you don't believe facts serve any purpose other than to confirm a bias. If that's wrong, explain how you see evidence working to overcome a bias.

Hey honor, my playtime here is over for now. We have family coming into visit soon. They’re flying in from Missouri. If and when I see there’s anything more that I can add to the conversation I will return.

Thanks for playing.

This thread has been going on a while. :rolleyes:

Regards,
MG

Whatever. The question is fundamental and direct. Either you don't think evidence matters in determining truth or you should explain how you see evidence working to overcome a bias.

I'm not acknowledging your dodge as anything but an attempt to escape responsibility for the implications of your arguments in this thread.

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

MG must be one of the moist successful trolls of all time.

You argue with him as if you don't understand the meaning of his moniker.

His name isn't a joke, you are the joke. He's shitposting.

I applaud his dedication.

[_honorentheos]

Probably. But I tend to think there is value in exposing it for what it is by closing off the escape routes until he is left with full abandonment or finally answering a question sincerely. He's done both in this thread to his own embarrassment.

[_Lemmie]

MG must be one of the moist successful trolls of all time.

You argue with him as if you don't understand the meaning of his moniker.

His name isn't a joke, you are the joke. He's ____.

I applaud his dedication.

And you’re breaking a moderator’s rule. You may say someone is behaving in a troll-like manner, but calling someone a troll gets your post moved to Telestial. At least, it used to when Mentalgymnast complainEd. Somehow, the dumbest troll of all time managed to convince a mod that calling someone a “troll” is so heinous it shouldn’t be considered free speech.

Don’t ask me. I don’t see the logic either.

...But I tend to think there is value in exposing it for what it is by closing off the escape routes until he is left with full abandonment or finally answering a question sincerely. He's done both in this thread to his own embarrassment.

Agreed. People say they want to hear from LDS, but hearing from them doesn’t have to mean letting their illogical arguments stand.

[_Gadianton]

MG: "But it is pointless to think/believe that any one of us are NOT immune to Illusory Truth Effect and Mere-exposure Effect. I mean, that’s science, right?"

No it isn't, MG. The 'discoverers' of the "Illusonry Truth Effect and mere-exposure Effect" aren't immune to bias either. We can assume the theory is false, as you assume whatever idea a critic advances is false, on the criteria of author bias.

H: "One of the arguments from the Greatest Guesser fiasco that made me laugh was around the origin of the paper."

I'm glad you brought that up. If ever a paper was a product of sheer unrestrained bias, it's that one. There is no other possible way to account for the existence of the paper. With the credentials they have, absent brainwashing, they could easily be instructed on the countless fundamental errors they made in the paper. HOWEVER --- notice the point was made as an observation or passing comment about the work now and again by critics, but the hundreds and thousands of comments attacking the paper from both critics and believers alike were nearly entirely focused on the substance of the paper.

Notice that interesting correlation. As the quality of work suffers as an effect of bias, criticism of the work glories in the preponderance of obvious errors that are easy to correct. When the work becomes difficult to deal with, "bias" is the objection of last defense. It's instructive how easily MG moves from arguing a position to raising his doctrine of bias. As soon as a critic moves out his first pawn of the game, MG is already going for a stalemate.

Yes, MG's worldview is moronic.

[_Gadianton]

MG isn't a troll. His behavior can be troll-like, especially as conversations go on a long time and irritating people is his last hope, but threads like this one begin with a great deal of sincerity. He really believes in the Church, and he really believes certain discoveries he's made with books like Givens' would convince any impartial observer.

[_mentalgymnast]

If that’s what they indeed are. But then there’s the interpretation of those facts. And our own conditioning...and illusions...that impact those interpretations.

Gets a bit messy.

that's an extremely concerning statement to make. I sense a non-believer struggling with expectations. My empathies.

As a wise man once suggested, we see through a glass darkly. Just what does that really mean? What is ambiguity if not messy? I can be a believer without having to see everything clearly. Others are less prone to put up with the messiness. Patience may be a factor. Faith, in my opinion, is the engine which motivates us to learn and grow both intellectually and spiritually. Take away one or the other of those and we are stunted in our opportunities for full self-actualization.

That’s been my experience.

Regards,
MG