Runtu wrote:I'm sorry you had trouble with my analogy. In short, testimony that they saw something isn't evidence that what they saw was ancient gold plates. The witness testimony is evidence they saw plates, but says nothing about whether what they saw was the record of the Nephites.
Absolutely no trouble with your analogy.
I'm being serious that this thread is simply a war of attrition for stemelbow to claim victory by out-stupiding everyone else.
What Runtu said is not an analogy. He wasn't comparing one thing to another thing.
Runtu wrote:Let me clarify. I don't think it's proof that they saw plates, but it certainly is evidence. That it's not very good evidence wasn't my point.
Man...this is silly. Every statement needs to carry every qualifier for clarifications' sake. It seems.
Thanks for jumpin safely on board with the majority.
love ya tons, stem
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:We can weigh the evidence later on. We need to stay focused in this discussion, i think, lest we carry this in directions not intended. love ya tons, stem
You first have to establish that what we're talking about is evidence of something (anything). I don't believe that you've done that. It sounds like your planning a little debate Ju Jitsu. :)
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
stemelbow wrote:Absolutely no trouble with your analogy. Just trouble with your lack of addressing the questions/points raised. It seems you agreed that the testimony of the 8 provides us evidence that Joseph Smith did indeed have gold-colored plates with engravings on them, but you seem unclear here. which is it? One clear answer, yes or no?
love ya tons, stem
I've said at least three times that I think the testimony provides evidence that they saw plates (including in the post you just quoted). Happy now?
Darth J wrote:I'm being serious that this thread is simply a war of attrition for stemelbow to claim victory by out-stupiding everyone else.
What Runtu said is not an analogy. He wasn't comparing one thing to another thing.
Pep pep...you just called Runtu stupid and probably didn't realize it. can we get back on track. Earlier Sock Puppet, by far the most reasonable critic whose participated ont his thread it seems to me, made room for us to move on to another claimed evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith' story regarding it--the 3 witnesses. If you wish, let's consider it, and determine if it can constitute evidence for that which it claims.
love ya tons, stem
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:Man...this is silly. Every statement needs to carry every qualifier for clarifications' sake. It seems.
Thanks for jumpin safely on board with the majority.
love ya tons, stem
No need to jump on board with anyone. I had this same discussion with Dan Peterson a long time ago, and my position has not changed since then. The witness testimony is evidence, but not proof.
Runtu wrote:I've said at least three times that I think the testimony provides evidence that they saw plates (including in the post you just quoted). Happy now?
Indeed, eternally so. I acknowledge your answer, which I did already too.
love ya tons, stem
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Darth J wrote:I'm being serious that this thread is simply a war of attrition for stemelbow to claim victory by out-stupiding everyone else.
What Runtu said is not an analogy. He wasn't comparing one thing to another thing.
He is a a hypocrite if he doesn't also believe that leprechauns "exist" - there are tons of people that "witnessed" the tree dwelling leprechaun in Mobile, AL:
stemelbow...do you believe in the existence of ANYTHING that someone claims to have seen?
"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
Quasimodo wrote:You first have to establish that what we're talking about is evidence of something (anything). I don't believe that you've done that. It sounds like your planning a little debate Ju Jitsu.
Sorry, Q. I'm going to have to move on with the majority rules opinion. Your the only one of the many who have chimed in who says it ain't evidence of nuttin'.
love ya tons, stem
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
schreech wrote:He is a a hypocrite if he doesn't also believe that leprechauns "exist" - there are tons of people that "witnessed" the tree dwelling leprechaun in Mobile, AL:
stemelbow...do you believe in the existence of ANYTHING that someone claims to have seen?
It would be nice if it were possible to send DJ and this new character into a thread title "Let's attack stemelbow endlessly". Then we could at least focus on the discussion at hand.
Schreech, I do not hold to the view that if someone claims to see something that means that something ipso facto exists. your strawman is an adorable show if its an attempt to whine about me, but it is a strawman, sadly for your sakes. I encourage you to engage in the topic/subject of the thread.
love ya tons, stem
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.