MAD Poster: DCP Delivers Talk that is not "Relevant"

[_Gadianton]

But I wouldn't be surprised if DCP agreed with me if I pointed out that WLC's arguments are easily adapted for Mormonism.

Catching up with the thread, it appears I was right there.

Right you were my friend.

And people thought I was just joking. Perhaps now that DCP has admitted to some of the highlights of my thesis, they will appreciate the serious tenor of my theory.

[_Gadianton]

'ya know Nehor and Gaz, instead of just calling people "dumbasses" and "idiots" and not offering up even the slightest hint of an argument, Dr. Peterson at least defends his position. Ok, he might try to turn me into a villain, but in addition to that he does try to explain himself and argue for his positions. And clearly, he has some brilliant ideas for furthering his cause.

I think it's about time you two grow up.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Actually, I think Gazelam and The Nehor have an admirable gift for concisely expressing the truth on this matter.

The Christian apologists and Mormon apologists putting away their differences in order to confront secularism.

And where, exactly, is this happening?

David Waltz, for instance, has called for such action in the past many times.

And the fact that David Waltz has called for such a thing on a message board proves that it's actually happening?

Where is the evidence that anybody is involved in this alleged "wicked," "mad," "devious" "scheme" (to give a fireside and write up an argument) except me?

You are the leader of the apologists.

[Spoken:]
Is she really going out with him?
Well, there she is. Let's ask her.
Betty, is that Danny's ring you're wearing?
Mm-hmm
Gee, it must be great riding with him
Is he picking you up after school today?
Uh-uh
By the way, where'd you meet him?

I met him at the FAIR bookstore
He turned around and smiled at me
You get the picture? (yes, we see)
That's when I fell for (the leader of the pack)

My folks were always putting him down (down, down)
They said he came from the wrong side of town
(whatcha mean when ya say that he came from the wrong side of town?)
They told me he was bad
But I knew he was sad
That's why I fell for (the leader of the pack)

One day my dad said, "Find someone new"
I had to tell my Danny we're through
(whatcha mean when ya say that ya better go find somebody new?)
He stood there and asked me why
But all I could do was cry
I'm sorry I hurt you (the leader of the pack)

[Spoken:]
He sort of smiled and kissed me goodbye
The tears were beginning to show
As he drove away on that rainy night
I begged him to go slow
But whether he heard, I'll never know

Look out! Look out! Look out! Look out!

I felt so helpless, what could I do?
Remembering all the things we'd been through
At FARMS they all stop and stare
I can't hide the tears, but I don't care
I'll never forget him (the leader of the pack)

The leader of the pack - now he's gone
The leader of the pack - now he's gone
The leader of the pack - now he's gone
The leader of the pack - now he's gone
[Fade]

If this project takes you several years and countless hours to complete, others will be involved.

It's my project. I conceived it. I've been working on it. I've had no collaboration. I seek no collaboration. I prefer to work and write on my own.

This isn't an institutional or corporate effort.

I have to say, in all candor, that you're really coming across as a conspiracy-obsessed wack job on this issue. I still think it most likely that you're simply making fun of Mister Scratch. (Which, mind you, is fine by me. If anybody richly deserves mockery for addiction to baseless fantasies about imaginary plots, he does.)

Non-LDS Christians have been writing on evidence for the resurrection for decades, at a minimum.

Then why do you need to write something on it?

Because it may be that I have something original to say. And, anyhow, Latter-day Saints are, by and large, unaware of serious evangelical and other Christian apologetics, so I think it worthwhile to introduce them to some of the better evidence and analysis. And, furthermore, this is part of a larger complex of arguments -- my own design, initiated entirely by me, pursued entirely by me, because of my interests, without outside assistance -- in which, as I've thought them through, it plays a vital part.

Why don't you just use their material, why will it take you several years to complete an original project on the subject?

There's a considerable literature to be worked through and, as I've said, this is only a part of a larger complex of interrelated arguments.

Anyway, what difference does it make to you? Why is it any of yours or your master's business? Do I need to have my personal reading and writing approved by some bizarre Scratchite regulatory commission?

You must feel you have something to add

I like to think that's true.

That's generally why I write.

and because the demand is already demonstrated, this only increases your chances.

My "chances" for what?

It is true that a very small part of William Lane Craig's argument for the resurrection of Christ could be turned (and I intend to turn it) to a defense of the Book of Mormon witnesses. But only a very small part.

...oh, do go on!

Thank you. I intend to do that.

I agree. Your remarks on Friday, as I said, were part of phase 1.

If you're serious about this supposed multi-phase plot by "the apologists," I fear that you're every bit as much a loon as your master is.

What then, does form the greater part of your "Evil Secret Motivation"?

Arguing things that I believe to be correct.

[Guest]

Let me ask you this. What do you think makes more sense.

A) The apologists

That's me. Gadianton Scratch believes that my real name is the apologists.

A) The apologists would write a book on the resurrection written and marketed to an atheistic audience when there are probably years of data showing that atheists are not avid purchasers of McDowell and Craig books?

B) The apologists

That's me, again.

B) The apologists would write a book on the resurrection written (as if) to athiests but marketed to Christians, where there is clearly already a demand for the material?

I have no idea which one of those makes more sense, and don't much care.

Neither scenario accurately describes my intent.

[Guest]

I think, Dr. Robbers, that you are making a very important point here.

QED. As prophesied.

I see further problems with DCP's project.

Of which you know essentially nothing. Not even the overall logic of the sustained argument I intend to make.

Of course, you know essentially nothing about Skinny-L, but that hasn't caused you to miss so much as a single beat in expounding paranoid nonsense purportedly based upon it.

BKP once warned that accurate history could be a "faith destroyer."

A rather disingenuous -- but typically Scratchist -- way of summarizing what he said.

Well, it seems to me that this "project" and others like it (the attempt to find empirical evidence for the Book of Mormon, e.g.) are "faith-destroyers" insofar as they attempt to render faith irrelevant. If you can prove that believing in the resurrection is "rational," then there is no need to simply have faith in the face of doubt and ridicule.

A fundamental misconception, on several levels, of both my project and the nature of faith and evidence.

Finally, if the basis of the argument that belief in the resurrection is rational is based primarily on the historical and/or eyewitness accounts, does that therefore mean that other such beliefs in things---alien abductions, say---are also "rational" on the basis of historical and/or eyewitness accounts?

Gee. Ain't never thought of that sort of comeback.

Without having seen so much as a line of anything I've written on the topic, Mister Scratch has refuted me.



.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And people thought I was just joking.

I still think you are.

(I try to be charitable.)

Perhaps now that DCP has admitted to some of the highlights of my thesis

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

they will appreciate the serious tenor of my theory.

What does it mean when a tenor drools out of both sides of his mouth?

The stage is level.

How can you tell when a tenor is really stupid?

When the other tenors notice.

[_Gazelam]

Gadianton,

'ya know Nehor and Gaz, instead of just calling people "dumbasses" and "idiots" and not offering up even the slightest hint of an argument, Dr. Peterson at least defends his position.

Bro. Peterson is eloquent. I am concise and straightforward, and I hold many truths to be self evident. If I see that a point actually needs an arguement, I may choose to offer one up beyond what I have previously stated.

Or if I think your counterpoint is stupid I'll just call you a dumbass and move on with my life.

Actually, I think Gazelam and The Nehor have an admirable gift for concisely expressing the truth on this matter.

YES !!!!! Justified. In your face Gadianton !

[_Mister Scratch]

I see further problems with DCP's project.

Of which you know essentially nothing. Not even the overall logic of the sustained argument I intend to make.

Oh? Well, then, please enlighten us! No need to keep it a big secret, right?

Of course, you know essentially nothing about Skinny-L, but that hasn't caused you to miss so much as a single beat in expounding paranoid nonsense purportedly based upon it.

Come on now, Dan. You know perfectly well that I have limited my comments to publicly available skinny-l exchanges, and to your own descriptions of the list. For you to continue claiming that I am somehow inventing stuff is a pretty gross exaggeration on your part. It seems that you're just angry over having your antics exposed and commented upon.

Well, it seems to me that this "project" and others like it (the attempt to find empirical evidence for the Book of Mormon, e.g.) are "faith-destroyers" insofar as they attempt to render faith irrelevant. If you can prove that believing in the resurrection is "rational," then there is no need to simply have faith in the face of doubt and ridicule.

A fundamental misconception, on several levels, of both my project and the nature of faith and evidence.

How so? I think, after all, that you would have to concede that a major part of FARMS (and Mopologetics generally) is devoted to the search for evidence which "proves" the Church. If this evidence is found, it eliminates the need for faith. Does it not?

Or, rather: do you prefer to view this quest for evidence as a means of trying to combat apostasy? (And really, is there any difference?)

Finally, if the basis of the argument that belief in the resurrection is rational is based primarily on the historical and/or eyewitness accounts, does that therefore mean that other such beliefs in things---alien abductions, say---are also "rational" on the basis of historical and/or eyewitness accounts?

Gee. Ain't never thought of that sort of comeback.

Without having seen so much as a line of anything I've written on the topic, Mister Scratch has refuted me.



.

You do know what the word "if" means, right? I've noticed that your reading comprehension seems to have suffered a significant setback as of late. Perhaps you're suffering from battle fatigue?

Anyhow: is that not the primary basis of your argument/project---that eyewitness accounts make it "reasonable" to believe in the resurrection? Y/N? (Or, even more likely: you won't say because you're afraid?)

[_The Nehor]

'ya know Nehor and Gaz, instead of just calling people "dumbasses" and "idiots" and not offering up even the slightest hint of an argument, Dr. Peterson at least defends his position.

If you were talking about his actual position this might mean something.

When a supervisor or director or VP at work announces a minor policy change that effects only them I will often discuss with co-workers what it means and defend it if I think it is a good idea. If someone came up with a rambling paranoid fantasy about how the board was behind it all in a plan to defraud or embarrass I see nothing to defend. I just wonder if the person in question should be on meds.

[_Gadianton]

Bro. Peterson is eloquent. I am concise and straightforward, and I hold many truths to be self evident.

Bigots always do, my friend.

Or if I think your counterpoint is stupid I'll just call you a dumbass and move on with my life.

Again, see above. Fred Phelps and his family would handle it the same way.

Actually, I think Gazelam and The Nehor have an admirable gift for concisely expressing the truth on this matter.

YES !!!!! Justified. In your face Gadianton !

How does DCP agreeing with you justify your foul behavior? This is entirely predictable from him anyway. While he is somewhat cautious about direct insults and so on, he seems to reward those mightily who aren't above such tactics and use them in his service.