Who has decided to voluntarily stop posting on MAD

[_beastie]

I can't speak for all. I can speak for myself. We are winning. No confirmation bias. The arguments of the critics are increasingly "logic impaired." DNA, for instance, made a big splash and sounds good to the people who don't know DNA. But when applied to population genetics, the killing blow critics hoped it would be vanished into thin air. There are questions now about the "production" of the Book of Abraham. But the text is being increasingly confirmed. No killer blow there either.

LOL. You know I had first added a sentence qualifying that there are likely a few believers who truly are convinced their side is winning, but I deleted it at the last minute. I had even named Charity in that sentence. So let me add it now. Yes, as Charity has demonstrated, there are a few believers who genuinely believe their side is "winning", but I also doubt any believer would admit that their side is consistently pretty beat up. That's why I was interested in selek's statement - it was as close as a believer would come to this admission. Whose "ox is being gored"?

This is the only logical explanation for why MADdites feel the need to keep purging critics. Anyone who's familiar with the board knows that critics do not generally behave worse than believers. There are already more believers than critics on the board. The board was created to air and deal with criticisms of the faith. So why are they so frustrated that they want to purge even more???

Let's use a loose sports comparison. Pretend there is a game called Fools Ball. In Fools Ball the home team gets to control how the game is played. They get to choose their own refs and have those refs apply basic rules with bias. In other words, the refs will call foul and pull out players on the away team while ignoring or outright condoning the same behavior on the home team. Even more, the refs get to simply eliminate members of the away team without giving justification, even under their biased application of rules.

Now if the Home Team is winning, will they need the refs to eliminate members of the away team for them?

I've always maintained this is why believers fled Z for FAIR. Z would not allow the refs to act with outright bias for the home team. So the home team was left with a regular game, based on skill and talent. Under this scenario, the home team was consistently losing, to the point where not only did their fans get disgusted and stop coming to the games, but the players themselves did not want to come to the games anymore. So Fool's Ball was created. The funny thing is that even using Fool's Ball instead of regular ball, the Home Team still can't win, and still needs to even further rig the game.

Critics have always known whose ox was being gored. It was just enlightening (and even encouraging, in a way) to see that at least some believers are aware of that reality as well - excepting, of course Charity, and a few others.

[_Trevor]

At least you produced something.

Yes, I produced about the only thing most of your comments merit.

[_Infymus]

We are winning. No confirmation bias. The arguments of the critics are increasingly "logic impaired." DNA, for instance, made a big splash and sounds good to the people who don't know DNA. But when applied to population genetics, the killing blow critics hoped it would be vanished into thin air. There are questions now about the "production" of the Book of Abraham. But the text is being increasingly confirmed. No killer blow there either.

For me, what is upsetting about the critics, is they get to the weak and vulnerable. Sort of like wolves going after the lame and young in the flock.

ROTFL! Now I'm cleaning coke off my monitor!

Charity, you are only winning in your own mind. The reason is simple. Ignorance.



You will not hear anything you don't want to hear. That is why to you the DNA evidence "vanished", or how the Book of Abraham is "increasingly confirmed". You are a typical Mormon. All is well in Zion Charity, all is well. As long as you don't look at anything that would cast your testimony in a bad light, you will be fine.

Some things that are true are not very useful.

[_BishopRic]

I haven't posted for a few months. The process there was amazingly sterile -- every time a "critic" would say "I was taught..." there was a cfr demand. But if a defender says "I know because the spirit told me...." there was no such cfr. The lopsided approach creates what the church always wants -- an artificial pink cloud!

[_Gadianton]

http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

I think someone is confusing revised theories that try to make the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham unfalsifiable as evidence that they are true.

[_guy sajer]

Believers like Charity (and many others) act as if the favor is truly on the apologists' side - ie, that the apologists or believers truly have the weight of evidence in their court. Their arguments are stronger and more convincing. It is only the stubbornness or "predatory" nature (selek's word) of critics that renders them incapable of seeing the reality of how superior the apologists' arguments are, in contrast to the critics.

I don't think we have the "weight of evidence" in our court. I believe there are answers to most critic complaints. I also believe that most of the "evidence" critics think they have are fried froth. An almost complete argument from absence of evidence. I think neither side has any smoking gun. This is fine with me. For our side we have something that the critics don't have. We have time.

Believers on MAD seem to assert or insinuate this so much that I really believed them - I believed that, perhaps due to confirmation bias, they really have themselves convinced that they're "winning" these debates. I think I've been fooled. I think they're well aware whose "ox is being gored".

I can't speak for all. I can speak for myself. We are winning. No confirmation bias. The arguments of the critics are increasingly "logic impaired." DNA, for instance, made a big splash and sounds good to the people who don't know DNA. But when applied to population genetics, the killing blow critics hoped it would be vanished into thin air. There are questions now about the "production" of the Book of Abraham. But the text is being increasingly confirmed. No killer blow there either.

For me, what is upsetting about the critics, is they get to the weak and vulnerable. Sort of like wolves going after the lame and young in the flock.

I

By God, Charity, you do live in your own little fantasy world.

I'd bet my bottom dollar that alient abduction apologists are making almost identical statements.

Please do let me know when the evidence confirming the text of the Book of Abraham is published in a reputable, objective, scientific outlet.

[_Trevor]

I'd bet my bottom dollar that alien abduction apologists are making almost identical statements.

By the way, guy, have you read Susan Clancy's book, Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens?

I found the similarities between the abductee phenomenon and types of religious experience quite astounding. There is a lot of truth in your statement, I think.

[_Maxrep]

Beastie,

I loved the Fools Ball Analogy. Spot on.

[_Trinity]

I have stopped posting. After two so-called suspensions of my accounts were never lifted, I figured it wasn't worth the trouble.

[_Jersey Girl]

charity

We are winning. No confirmation bias. The arguments of the critics are increasingly "logic impaired." DNA, for instance, made a big splash and sounds good to the people who don't know DNA. But when applied to population genetics, the killing blow critics hoped it would be vanished into thin air. There are questions now about the "production" of the Book of Abraham. But the text is being increasingly confirmed. No killer blow there either.

For me, what is upsetting about the critics, is they get to the weak and vulnerable. Sort of like wolves going after the lame and young in the flock.

If you don't mind my asking, charity, what would you consider a "killer blow" to the Book of Mormon?