My First Encounter with Bill Hamblin

[_why me]

And this was Kevin's first encounter with Bill? My gosh....what more can be said.

[_DrW]

When one accuses another of lying, in spite of available evidence to the contrary, that pretty much qualifies as an ad hominem attack. Now, I can understand why apologists would wish to allow themselves some latitude in this regard, but extending it to calling one a liar without evidence seems a bit much.

Merely being an apologist does not excuse you from calling someone a liar when that individual has provided his full identity and internet references to others on the board, who have in turn verified that said individual does in fact hold a Ph.D., has numerous patents, and is published extensively in peer reviewed journals as a scientist.

If you had a shred of integrity, you would apologize.

Without proof it is no better than a lie. A boast without proof is really cowardly.

I will make the following statement to you which I made to former academic on this board who shortly thereafter stopped posting. Or at least it appeared so.

I routinely ask my scientific experts during cross examination if they ever post to blogs anonymously. If they are truthful and identify their posts the jury finds it appalling when they make various boasts about their credentials in the context of insulting or defaming somebody.

How about you? Do you think it honorable to boast about your credentials AND insult somebody anonymously.

Yahoo Bot,

There you go again. Next up - apologetic obfuscation.

What does "Without proof it is no better than a lie" even mean?
Dangerous ground for an apologist, I would think. Did you make that up yourself?

It makes no difference whatsoever to the issue at hand what you ask "your" scientific experts.

You are the one who is doing the insulting here.

Did I not say that I had made full identity disclosure to a member of the board who verified, on the board, everything that I had said about my education background, publications and corporate positions?

Do you not even have the integrity to at least check out this claim before continuing to call me a liar?

I have not insulted or defamed anyone on the board and have certainly not called anyone a liar. You, on the other hand, have done so, and without evidence.

Again, an apology would be in order.

[_Darth J]

Without proof it is no better than a lie.

Thus endeth the debate as to Mormonism's truth claims.

[_DrW]

Without proof it is no better than a lie.

Thus endeth the debate as to Mormonism's truth claims.

Dare I add an "Amen" ?

(Perhaps a hearty "RAmen" would be more fitting to the occasion.)

[_Yahoo Bot]

The proofs of Mormon claims come in various forms depending on the topic. There are many proofs.

For instance, the gold plates are buttressed with eyewitness testimony. My favorite testimony is the recanter John Page (I think that is his first name) who recanted his 8 witness testimony with the statement that because, when he was handling the plates of gold, he couldn't read the characters thereon. Thus, he couldn't attest to the authenticity of the plates. Great stuff.

The resurrection of Christ, by contrast, is attested to by eyewitnesses but there is considerable question as to the provenance of the gospel accounts (no original mss.) So, to that extent, eyewitness testimony of the gold plates is stronger.

There's also eyewitness testimony to the ministering of angels to Joseph Smith and others.

Of course, one could dispute and attempt to impeach these testimonies, but as an evidentiary matter the proofs are certainly much stronger than DrW's anonymous claim that he holds a doctorate. Anonymous testimony is not, as an evidentiary matter, acceptable.

I frankly think it very silly that somebody would get his feathers ruffled with challenges to an anonymous claim that he holds a doctorate. I think that speaks to DrW's rhetorical limitations.

[I also note that DrW demands an apology. This causes me to wonder if he's a sock puppet for the committee of persons who pose as Scratch.]

[_jon]

The resurrection of Christ, by contrast, is attested to by eyewitnesses but there is considerable question as to the provenance of the gospel accounts (no original mss.) So, to that extent, eyewitness testimony of the gold plates is stronger.

There's also eyewitness testimony to the ministering of angels to Joseph Smith and others.

Of course, one could dispute and attempt to impeach these testimonies, but as an evidentiary matter the proofs are certainly much stronger than DrW's anonymous claim that he holds a doctorate. Anonymous testimony is not, as an evidentiary matter, acceptable.

How many 'witnesses' have attested to the fact that Mormonism is a load of bunk? I'm guessing it's more than 11. In fact I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that there are more living people who joined the Church and left because they witnessed tha fact that it's bogus than are still actively attending Church, so 8 or 9 million, maybe more.

So, from a 'number of witnesses' perspective, the Church fails.

Any other measures you want to use...?

[_Yahoo Bot]

I think the question is whether there is evidence to the key claims of Mormonism.

I've identified a select few of them.

There's lots more.

Of course, in matters of faith and religion, there's going to be a lot of Satanists such as yourself agitating against the cross.

[_Buffalo]

I think the question is whether there is evidence to the key claims of Mormonism.

I've identified a select few of them.

There's lots more.

Of course, in matters of faith and religion, there's going to be a lot of Satanists such as yourself agitating against the cross.

Cross not found.

[_Darth J]

I think the question is whether there is evidence to the key claims of Mormonism.

I've identified a select few of them.

There's lots more.

Of course, in matters of faith and religion, there's going to be a lot of Satanists such as yourself agitating against the cross.

I think the question is whether there is substantially more evidence contrary to the key claims of Mormonism, and to the Latter-day Saint version of Mormonism in particular.

I've identified a select few of them on this board.

There's lots more.

Of course, in matters of faith and religion, there's going to be a lot of reactionary tribalism such as yours conflating Satanism with disputing the truth claims of the corporate bureaucracy cum 19th-century folk mythology that is the LDS Church, and conflating Joseph Smith's tall tales and the modern LDS Church's Ozzie and Harriet mentality with Christianity in general ("the cross").

[_Yahoo Bot]

I think that your post was that there is no evidence.

Of course, that is simply not true and I pointed you to evidence.

But, not wishing to tackle the evidence, you simply say that the weight of the evidence is against Mormon claims. I take it you abandon your argument that there is no evidence.

I'd say the weight of evidence far exceeds proof of the resurrection, but I believe it nonetheless on the strength of the evidence that exists.