Yahoo Bot wrote: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.
I'd go ahead and agree that the evidence for the Book of Mormon is on equal grounds with the evidence for the Voree Plates.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote: I'd go ahead and agree that the evidence for the Book of Mormon is on equal grounds with the evidence for the Voree Plates.
Certainly that is untrue. There were eyewitnesses who said the latter were forgeries, and they appeared to be to those willing to look at them. Seems you know little of the Strang issues.
Plus, they were too conveniently similar to Joseph Smith's claims.
Buffalo wrote: I'd go ahead and agree that the evidence for the Book of Mormon is on equal grounds with the evidence for the Voree Plates.
Certainly that is untrue. There were eyewitnesses who said the latter were forgeries, and they appeared to be to those willing to look at them. Seems you know little of the Strang issues.
Plus, they were too conveniently similar to Joseph Smith's claims.
There are eyewitnesses to the Gold Plates characters who say they are a form of Latin Shorthand that at the time of Joseph Smith were thought to be ancient Phoenician.
Plus, the gold plates were too conveniently similar to Ethan Smith's claims.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Yahoo Bot wrote:I think that your post was that there is no evidence.
That's because you are equivocating between "proof" and "evidence."
Of course, that is simply not true and I pointed you to evidence.
As DrW pointed you to evidence that he has the qualifications he claims to have.
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.
Or, instead of mischaracterizing what I said based on your equivocation between "proof" and "evidence," people could read what I wrote in this thread:
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.
That would the evidence that consists of unverifiable hearsay from an unverifiable source of indeterminate provenance, right? Or "the New Testament," as a shorthand reference.
It's really funny to read the exchange between Hamblin and Graham and then to shake your head in disbelief when Graham tries to spin it as evidence of how bad he "mopped the floors" with his opponent. Dude is not 100% together upstairs.
... she said that she was ready to drive up to Salt Lake City and confront ... Church leaders ... while well armed. The idea was ... dropped ... [because] she didn't have a 12 gauge with her. -DrW about his friends (Link)
Nomad wrote:It's really funny to read the exchange between Hamblin and Graham and then to shake your head in disbelief when Graham tries to spin it as evidence of how bad he "mopped the floors" with his opponent. Dude is not 100% together upstairs.
Whatever you say, sockpuppet denyin' sockpuppet guy.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Yahoo Bot wrote: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.]
Yahoo Bot,
I frankly think that your behavior on this thread shows a stunning lack of character on your part. Why not show a shred of integrity and apologize? You seem to want to link anonymity with lack of character. Yet I note that you remain anonymous on the board.
I note that, rather than simply apologize for calling me a liar without evidence, you choose to continue to obfuscate and dodge while generating yet more smoke to cover your retreat. I suppose that I should not be surprised, since this is the only tactic available to those who have no evidence to back their position.
And finally, I would think that the good Dr. Scratch would be quite upset to hear that you suggested he would generate someone like me as a sock puppet.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
Yahoo Bot wrote: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.
Looks like more than just 8 people have seen the leprechauns...But, hey, I don't expect much more from people who have committed many decades to such nonsensical beliefs - I get that its hard to let go.
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
Kevin. I am a fan. We be bros, I say, whether you think so or no, I don't care.
I can think of nothing more fun than if you were a dyed in the wool FOLLOW THE PROPHET cultist who denied Christ his rightful reign over his own gospel and supplanted coming unto Christ with full purpose of heart to be born of him, for a fierce FTP sycophant mentality and we go toe to toe while, in your mind, proving me absolutely wrong. Wont be getting any of that from what's left of, D, YB, N, and um, I think that's it. Shucks!
Bob Crockett misrepresents the exchange to suit his straw man. Where on earth did anyone start talking about the Jews, the Palestinians or the State of Israel??
Good grief!
The point wasn't to resurrect an old argument regarding Islam. But if Bob wants to debate the points, then I challenge him to do so. Of course, he knows he doesn't have the background knowledge required to debate this topic any more than he knows enough about anything else discussed on these forums. So he'll continue to exist in straw man land while hurling insults.
And Nomad Schryver comes in to delude himself further about what the exchange proved. It proved the following embarrassing facts for Professor Hamblin:
1. William Hamblin falsely accused me of misrepresenting what he said. 2. When shown that it was Hamblin who misrepresented what he said, Hamblin refused to apologize. In fact, he abandoned the discussion only when it became clear he had to way to back out of the corner he had painted himself into. 3. What Bill called laughable was explicit in a textbook Bill used in his class.
For this reason, Hamblin has been belligerent towards me over the years.
As far as the details of the debate, what I said is absolutely true and Bob Crockett is in no position to prove otherwise, and he knows it. The dhimmis under Islamic rule could never "do whatever they wanted" as Bill Hamblin falsely asserted. And jihad was not something to be invoked only in time of "defense." I cited Bernard Lewis, who Dan Peterson calls the greatest English speaking authority on Islam, to refute that little piece of apologetic nonsense.
The only response so far is to attack me for being anti-Muslim or whatever.
It isn't anti-Muslim to state what virtually every Muslim authority with state to be true. Dan and Bill have a history of misrepresenting traditional Muslim belief, trying to spin it in a way to make it more acceptable to Western ears. I don't fault Dan for interpreting Islam in such a way, I only fault him for trying to pretend his is the majority view within Islam, while claiming what I have said to be fringe. The opposite is true, and Dan doesn't know how to deal with this embarrassing fact other than to refuse to debate me and poison the well. By poisoning the well and getting his audience to believe I'm some rabid anti-Islamist, he thinks he can get away with misinforming his readers and twisting the truth. But then, he has a lot of experience with this. Applying what he learned from Mormon apologetics, to Islam, comes natural to him.