DiscussMormonism.com

“DCP” wrote: gemli: "There is no evidence for a supernatural supreme being."
This is simply false. Period.
As I've said to you many times before, you could be taken seriously if you were to say that there's insufficient evidence to convince you. But the flat denial that any evidence exists at all is not intellectually serious.

“DCP” wrote: gemli: "Evidence is only valuable if it accurately reflects true circumstances and events, and if those who evaluate it are not gullible, or in the thrall of some goofy ideas."
It's fun watching you pontificate about evidence. Rather like observing an illiterate jungle shaman discourse on the current developments in cardio-thoracic surgery.

“DCP” wrote: gemli: "But there's not a scrap of real, examinable evidence for any of these things."
But there is, of course. Your dogmatic refusal to examine it doesn't make it go away.

“DCP” wrote: gemli: "Stories are not evidence for extraordinary claims."
Says who? Stories -- e.g., contemporary accounts from eyewitnesses -- can certainly be evidence on historical issues. I realize, of course, that historiography isn't herpetology (a.k.a. "The Queen of the Sciences"), but it's taken quite seriously as a legitimate field of inquiry everywhere outside of gemli-world.

DCP seems to me to be an incredibly persistent advocate for the post-modern idea that there can be no objective reality. Reality is whatever you want it to be, and any evidence is valid by definition if you believe that it’s valid for you. Gold plates, water divining, near death experiences, homeopathy, etc etc.

You can take any conspiracy theory you like and fit it into the pattern he uses to defend Mormonism. “You haven’t examined the flat earth evidence.” “You haven’t taken seriously enough the premise that vaccines cause autism, gemli.” “Gemli just asserts that the earth rotates around the sun dogmatically, exactly the same as any theist.”

This seems, to me, to be a very disturbing trend in recent human history. We could all agree decades ago that vaccines were necessary to eradicate smallpox and other scourges. Now? You’re bombarded with DCP-esque characters promoting misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information to promote their own financial or religious interests.

Is it really that hard for society to come to a consensus on matters like the shape of the Earth? Vaccine effectiveness? Hebrews living in the pre-Columbian Americas? The sad answer is yes, as long as people like DCP continue their crusade against reasonable standards of evidence.

Beyond the notion that if someone simply claims something is real, that that is somehow eViDeNcE of ‘real-ness’, I think Kishkumen provided one of the best metaphors with regard to how mopologists operate in that ‘they give you a pile of sand and a pair of tweezers to move it.’

They understand that it’s an impossible task for anyone to realistically accomplish, to read through mountains of Mormon BS without swallowing a bottle of carfentanyl and washing it down with a glass of whiskey (for good measure). No one is doing that. The reading bit. Because it’s absolute horse crap to twist your mind into pretzels trying to believe a con man popped for scrying and treasure digging is the vessel that God Himself chose to reveal BibleLateWarViewoftheHebrews fanfic through a damned rock, thereby invalidating the central premise of the golden plates.

It’s just all so absurd.

And that schlocky “academic” peddles this crap.

Ugh. Mormons. Dowsin’ Dan is a conman.

- posted from Chicago, flight connections went off without a hitch

- Doc

drumdude wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 31, 2022 9:46 pm

“DCP” wrote: gemli: "Stories are not evidence for extraordinary claims."
Says who? Stories -- e.g., contemporary accounts from eyewitnesses -- can certainly be evidence on historical issues. I realize, of course, that historiography isn't herpetology (a.k.a. "The Queen of the Sciences"), but it's taken quite seriously as a legitimate field of inquiry everywhere outside of gemli-world.

So is DCP saying God only exists in a historical sense? and there is no current God?

sock puppet wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 31, 2022 11:36 pm

drumdude wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 31, 2022 9:46 pm

So is DCP saying God only exists in a historical sense? and there is no current God?

It’s just a coincidence that God decided to start hiding himself with the advent of photography.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 31, 2022 10:33 pm

Beyond the notion that if someone simply claims something is real, that that is somehow eViDeNcE of ‘real-ness’, …

Conversely, with Dan’s logic, if someone simply claims that something is not real - like Nephites - then this is evidence enough of that being the fact.

canpakes wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 01, 2022 4:39 am

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 31, 2022 10:33 pm

Beyond the notion that if someone simply claims something is real, that that is somehow eViDeNcE of ‘real-ness’,

Conversely, with Dan’s logic, if someone simply claims that something is not real - like Nephites - then this is evidence enough of that being the fact.

I just read Mark Twain's critique of the Book of Mormon today. I knew it existed, I've read the "chloroform in print" quotes and others like it but hadn't bothered reading it before.

I actually lol'd several times.

He got a few details wrong, but otherwise he it the nail on the head. I admire the sarcasm and wit

canpakes wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 01, 2022 4:39 am

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 31, 2022 10:33 pm

Beyond the notion that if someone simply claims something is real, that that is somehow eViDeNcE of ‘real-ness’, …

Conversely, with Dan’s logic, if someone simply claims that something is not real - like Nephites - then this is evidence enough of that being the fact.

Just repeat the claim that Nephites did not exist often enough, and it becomes prima facie "fact."

sock puppet wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 01, 2022 4:41 pm

canpakes wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 01, 2022 4:39 am

Conversely, with Dan’s logic, if someone simply claims that something is not real - like Nephites - then this is evidence enough of that being the fact.

Just repeat the claim that Nephites did not exist often enough, and it becomes prima facie "fact."

And LDS Egyptologists and Mesopotamian archeologists are not lonely.

noel: "It must be lonely for an LDS member to be a mesoamerican archaeologist or an Egyptologist"

Actually, the ones that I know seem reasonably happy and content.

Father Francis wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 01, 2022 5:42 am

canpakes wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 01, 2022 4:39 am

Conversely, with Dan’s logic, if someone simply claims that something is not real - like Nephites - then this is evidence enough of that being the fact.

I just read Mark Twain's critique of the Book of Mormon today. I knew it existed, I've read the "chloroform in print" quotes and others like it but hadn't bothered reading it before.

I actually lol'd several times.

He got a few details wrong, but otherwise he it the nail on the head. I admire the sarcasm and wit

Daniel’s apologetic response to Twain is almost as hilarious as Twain’s writing itself.

“It’s not a serious book review”

drumdude wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 01, 2022 5:35 pm

Father Francis wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 01, 2022 5:42 am

I just read Mark Twain's critique of the Book of Mormon today. I knew it existed, I've read the "chloroform in print" quotes and others like it but hadn't bothered reading it before.

I actually lol'd several times.

He got a few details wrong, but otherwise he it the nail on the head. I admire the sarcasm and wit

Daniel’s apologetic response to Twain is almost as hilarious as Twain’s writing itself.

“It’s not a serious book review”

I tried googling it, but couldn't find it. I'd love to read it. Whenever I read what DCP writes I hear in his smarmy voice. He's obviously an intelligent person, but he's hampered by the fact that he can't grasp the possibility that the church is based on lies. I'm sure he'd argue that critics start with the notion that the church can't be true. The fact is, so many of us wanted the church's dogma to be true. I myself researched it before I left. I even read a lot of FARM/FAIR apologetic articles. The irony is that the FARM/FAIR arguments didn't hold water and were the last thing I read before I decided I no longer believed. I was desperately seeking for something to tell me that the beliefs I held since I can remember, the beliefs most of my family and friends held were true. It was heartbreaking for me and the people around me. I lost my earliest childhood friends over it. I didn't even talk to them about why I left the church. Still, they could not suffer an apostate such as myself. I don't like those kind of awkward, possibly hostile conversations in real life. I left because I couldn't fake it knowing what I knew.