More Invention of Evidence

[_beastie]

Recently we had an interesting thread about the invention of evidence in FARMs article. It's also been demonstrated that LDS apologists such as John Sorenson and Hugh Nibley have engaged in the invention of evidence as well.

So I'm heartened to see that the believers on MAD universally condemn the invention of evidence, and assert that if evidence has been invented in a source, the entire source must be questioned.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=26796

Here are some quotes:

jwhitlock:

The blatant inaccuracies and mischaracterizations of his writing woiuld probably serve to discount his perceptions in and of themselves. If he can't make an honest case for his conclusions, why should we even give them some consideration? The same goes for the fringe EVs.

If the research is bad, then it must certainly follow that the conclusions are questionable. The excerpts on Slate that you referred to bear that up.

He's an entertaining writer, but he's all presentation and no substance. He is counting on most readers to make an emotional connection with his conclusions by the tone of his diatribe, not by whether what he says is accurate or not.

My hope is that ____ would be perceived as an embarrassment by most atheists, in the same manner that fringe EVs are viewed as an embarrassment by many EVs.

cal

If ___'s quotes of his material are accurate, at the very least ____'s research lacks greatly. As to whether ____'s logic is as bad as it appeared, I think I'd need to read the book to decide that.

DCP

The Hitchens book is far worse than I had realized even after my second reading of it.

There is virtually no claim in it that isn't at least questionable. Many are as wrong as they could possibly be.

It's unspeakably awful.

The author's sincerity is questioned, due to these obvious distortions of research and facts.

jwhitlock

_____' sincerity is unclear; certainly where there is the draw of money from selling books, or the popularity received from his showmanship, his sincerity can be questioned.

_____ was pretty specific about how riddled with errors ____' book was; there weren't just a few, mischaracterization was pretty much SOP for everything he talked about in the book. Indeed, I get the impression from the excerpts I read on Slate that his attitude is almost "why tell the truth, when a juicier lie makes a bigger impact". He understands that sleaze sells. And it's not just a few errors; the book is full of them.

I don't think he's not dangerous. Anyone who is in the business of rousing the rabble up to a fever pitch needs to be watched. Reviews of his book have pointed out the errors he makes; the errors are so pervasive in his book that I am not sure that he really cares or did care whether he was accurate. He's not out to convert, only to sell to the choir. The comments on Amazon are interesting in their polarization and perspective as to how people have reacted.

The scary part about this is going to Amazon and reading the comments of so many who think this is a wonderful, well reasoned book. Polarization of perspective, indeed!

It is encouraging to see that MADdites are willing to reject the work of an individual who has (by their account, I have not read the book in question) proven unreliable in his research.





Oh, yeah. The author happens to be an atheist, Christopher Hitchens, which is why they're happy to point out his unreliable research and conclude this makes all his conclusions and sincerity questionable.


Funny how they can't apply that same standard to their own apologists.

[_beastie]

Heads up: I'm getting ready to leave shortly, so may not be back until later this evening to respond to any possible replies.

[_Ray A]

Oh, yeah. The author happens to be an atheist, Christopher Hitchens, which is why they're happy to point out his unreliable research and conclude this makes all his conclusions and sincerity questionable.


Funny how they can't apply that same standard to their own apologists.

Not really. There's a difference between an atheist, and an atheist with an agenda. You can class them as as peaceful "live and let live atheists", or "atheists with an axe to grind" - like you.

[_Tarski]

Recently we had an interesting thread about the invention of evidence in FARMs article. It's also been demonstrated that LDS apologists such as John Sorenson and Hugh Nibley have engaged in the invention of evidence as well.

So I'm heartened to see that the believers on MAD universally condemn the invention of evidence, and assert that if evidence has been invented in a source, the entire source must be questioned.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=26796

.

Not one of these links to MAD has ever worked for me. Why?

[_barrelomonkeys]

You have to copy and paste them. MAD won't let any links open to their site from this site.

Copy and paste that link and it will work.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Funny how they can't apply that same standard to their own apologists.

Isn't it?

[_beastie]

Not really. There's a difference between an atheist, and an atheist with an agenda. You can class them as as peaceful "live and let live atheists", or "atheists with an axe to grind" - like you.

Boy, the point of the post went right over your head, didn't it?

I haven't even read Hitchen's book, so, unlike almost every MAD poster who also haven't read the book but feel free to chime in and condemn it, can't comment on whether or not the book if full of inaccuracies. My point is that the MADdites are more than willing to reject the conclusions of the book due to obvious inaccuracies, and even state that his inaccuracies make his sincerity dubious. The irony is, of course, that MAD apologia is also full of inaccuracies, but when critics point out that this makes the entire work dubious and speculate about the sincerity of apologists, we're just nasty people with "axes to grind."

[_Ray A]

Boy, the point of the post went right over your head, didn't it?

The "point" did not go "over my head" at all, which is an increasing tactic of yours lately. I was making an observation about you. Do you get it?

[_beastie]

Why is it so difficult for theists to understand that the only characteristic shared by all atheists is the lack of belief in a god of any sort? Why do they so often speak as if someone "represents" the "atheist community"?

Religions are organized, complete with dogma and representatives. Atheism is not a religion, it is a lack of belief in a god of any sort. It has no dogma, no representatives.

[_beastie]

The "point" did not go "over my head" at all, which is an increasing tactic of yours lately. I was making an observation about you. Do you get it?

Of course I understand that, predictably, you're trying to divert the conversation from the topic of the thread. Whether or not I'm an atheist "with an axe to grind" is entirely irrelevant to the point of this thread, and your opinion on that particular matter doesn't interest me in the least.

Now, if you have a comment about the point of the thread, which is observing how quickly the MADdites agree that Hitchen's entire work is dubious due to all the factual inaccuracies, while ignoring the proven fact that the apologia produced by their fellow Mormons is also full of factual inaccuracies, please make it.