Peterson Misleading Again

[_beastie]

So, final analysis:

1 - DCP disdains the "gotcha" game on this board, while at the same time playing "gotcha" even to the extent that he's willing to seriously alter quotations from posters

2 - DCP disdains the sneering tone on this board, while at the same time engaging in a sneering tone

3 - DCP refuses to take the time to respond to serious questions, while spending quite a bit of time on numbers 1 and 2.

[_harmony]

So, final analysis:

1 - DCP disdains the "gotcha" game on this board, while at the same time playing "gotcha" even to the extent that he's willing to seriously alter quotations from posters

2 - DCP disdains the sneering tone on this board, while at the same time engaging in a sneering tone

3 - DCP refuses to take the time to respond to serious questions, while spending quite a bit of time on numbers 1 and 2.

Daniel can't respond seriously to any questions here, serious or otherwise. Were he to do so, he would validate this board, and nowhere in his worldview does he allow for validation of this board. He's simply being true to his worldview, when he plays games and sneers here. Expecting or anticipating anything else is an exercise in frustration.

He's likes a kid in a sandbox here. Sometimes he throws sand at us, sometimes he turns his back on someone else in the sandbox, sometimes he throws toys, sometimes he plays nicely by himself, and sometimes he gets irritated enough to dust off the sand and go home in a huff. He likes our sandbox though, enough that he comes to around every once in a while to see what we're doing and stays to play with us. He doesn't bully anyone here, because we have bigger bullies than he is. Sometimes other friends of his come too. We don't have clumping sand though, so we know when he's been indiscreet and we have to go get a shovel to clean up the mess. Sometimes he denies that the mess is his, at which time we have a squabble between him and some of the others who play in the sandbox, about exactly whose mess it is. That's when others just roll their eyes and hold their noses.

[_beastie]

Daniel can't respond seriously to any questions here, serious or otherwise. Were he to do so, he would validate this board, and nowhere in his worldview does he allow for validation of this board. He's simply being true to his worldview, when he plays games and sneers here. Expecting or anticipating anything else is an exercise in frustration.

He's likes a kid in a sandbox here. Sometimes he throws sand at us, sometimes he turns his back on someone else in the sandbox, sometimes he throws toys, sometimes he plays nicely by himself, and sometimes he gets irritated enough to dust off the sand and go home in a huff. He likes our sandbox though, enough that he comes to around every once in a while to see what we're doing and stays to play with us. He doesn't bully anyone here, because we have bigger bullies than he is. Sometimes other friends of his come too. We don't have clumping sand though, so we know when he's been indiscreet and we have to go get a shovel to clean up the mess. Sometimes he denies that the mess is his, at which time we have a squabble between him and some of the others who play in the sandbox, about exactly whose mess it is. That's when others just roll their eyes and hold their noses.

LOL!

Besides being funny, I think you just about nailed it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Plainly, beastie, you're taking my signature line much more seriously than signature lines are typically taken here. Master Scartch has a signature that suggests that I would like to kill him, for example, yet I don't think you've expressed any reservations about that one, and there are plenty of others that misrepresent either me or somebody else on the other "side." But you're fine with all of those.

Oh well. Human nature, I suppose.

I'll change my signature line when I get around to it. The more you badger me about it, though, the longer it's likely to take.

Besides being funny, I think you just about nailed it.

Oh, she did. She is, after all, the Olympian Judge Harmony.

A person who doesn't devote himself to this board as the ideal place for serious intellectual discussion simply cannot really be interested in serious intellectual discussion at all!, and must be a coward and a hypocrite.

P.S. Incidentally, your own current signature line "Enjoy DCP's methodology being shot down by a fellow apologist," contains a slight mistake. The "white crow" point isn't mine. It was originated by and borrowed from the notoriously incompetent Mormon apologist William James.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James

[_beastie]

Bad methodology is bad methodology, no matter where the source. After all, James used the same methodology to believe in psychic mediums.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Bad methodology is bad methodology, no matter where the source. After all, James used the same methodology to believe in psychic mediums.

Wrong attribution is still wrong attribution.

And, anyway, James's point is entirely sound. All that is required in order to refute a universal negative proposition is a single counterexample (an affirmative particular proposition).

Logic 101. Roughly week two or three.

[_Trevor]

And, anyway, James's point is entirely sound. All that is required in order to refute a universal negative proposition is a single counterexample (an affirmative particular proposition).

Logic 101. Roughly week two or three.

Very true, but I am not sure the absence of a counterexample always means a counterexample is out there just waiting to be revealed.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Very true, but I am not sure the absence of a counterexample always means a counterexample is out there just waiting to be revealed.

Nor am I.

Nor have I ever said so.

[_beastie]

And, anyway, James's point is entirely sound. All that is required in order to refute a universal negative proposition is a single counterexample (an affirmative particular proposition).

Now that's shocking. Just shocking. It is so gratifying to have you instruct me in basic logic.

The problem was your methodology, your application of this simple truism. Your application of the "White crow" theory, in combination with loose translation artifacts, renders the Book of Mormon an unfalsifiable text. Coincidentally, that was the point I was making to Ben - current apologia renders the Book of Mormon unfalsifiable. We followed this up in a later conversation in which you admitted that, as far as you were concerned, very little could falsify the Book of Mormon, and nothing from Mesoamerica could. Remember that one?

The "white crow" is particularly problematic in terms of justifying belief in a complex Judeo-Christian polity in ancient Mesoamerica, for all the reasons I describe here:

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/holylord.htm

by the way, I didn't say you made up the "white crow". I said your methodology using it was bad, and was recognized as bad by Ben as soon as I took the words out of your mouth and applied them to the Gospel of Barnabas.

[_beastie]

Plainly, beastie, you're taking my signature line much more seriously than signature lines are typically taken here. Master Scartch has a signature that suggests that I would like to kill him, for example, yet I don't think you've expressed any reservations about that one, and there are plenty of others that misrepresent either me or somebody else on the other "side." But you're fine with all of those.

Oh well. Human nature, I suppose.

I'll change my signature line when I get around to it. The more you badger me about it, though, the longer it's likely to take.

Oh, don't bother, I was just testing you. Feel free to keep the sig as long as it pleases you, it provides an easy reference for me on how apologists take comments out of context and remove crucial information from quotes. So it's really quite useful.