People who don't know shouldn't use term they don't understand. A delusion is a "false belief." You have to be able to PROVE that my belief is false. You can't provide that proof. All you can offer up is your belief.
You're such an idiot. By that logic, the term delusional has no meaning whatsoever.
So one cannot tell a man who says he sees flying monkeys and hears pink elephants whispering sweet nothings, that he is delusional. The job of the psychologist must first be to prove these things aren't true.
One can only hope this poor man doesn't see a Mormon psychologist. Mormons never allow any room for evidence against what they "know." At least, not any evidence man can come up with - or so you said recently.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
charity wrote:All the arguments against the historicity are just fried froth.
So, they're sort of like meringue? And what are the Book of Abraham arguments like? Key Limes?
Just call polygamy crusty and we're well on our way to a real treat.
Damn, I'm making myself hungry.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
People who don't know shouldn't use term they don't understand. A delusion is a "false belief." You have to be able to PROVE that my belief is false. You can't provide that proof. All you can offer up is your belief.
You're such an idiot. By that logic, the term delusional has no meaning whatsoever.
You can't even use your limited vocabulary precisely.
dartagnan wrote:So one cannot tell a man who says he sees flying monkeys and hears pink elephants whispering sweet nothings, that he is delusional. The job of the psychologist must first be to prove these things aren't true.
So what happens when the psychiatrist puts the flying monkey seeing patient on meds in a psych ward, when the guy had just seen the "Wizard of Oz" movie? You better believe the psychiatrist has to know that the patient was not describing a reality based experience.
Remember, the little boy really did see dead people.
dartagnan wrote: One can only hope this poor man doesn't see a Mormon psychologist. Mormons never allow any room for evidence against what they "know." At least, not any evidence man can come up with - or so you said recently.
Your "everything Mormon is bad" mantra gets a little old and tired.
guy sajer wrote:I repeat, Charity, you are delusional. I would feel comfortable offering this line of argument as corroborating proof.
Go on waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting . . . ..
People who don't know shouldn't use term they don't understand. A delusion is a "false belief." You have to be able to PROVE that my belief is false. You can't provide that proof. All you can offer up is your belief.
A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional
You are delusional in every sense of the word, Charity.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Jersey Girl wrote:In another thread, charity, described various reasons why she thinks the critic's are not "winning", I suppose you could say, and she wrote about not seeing any "killer blows" to the Book of Abraham. I posed this question to charity in the existing thread but now I'm curious.
What would TBM's consider to be a "killer blow" to the Book of Mormon?
Some sort of direct proof that is was authored by someone other then Smith, someone such as Rigdon or someone else.
Then brace yourself, Jason.
Why?
Is there some new irrefutable proof? Direct proof? I know you buy into Rigon using the Spalding manuscript. I don't. While plausible it seems to have too many holes.
I really do not understand why believers insist that NO evidence regarding the nature of ancient Mesoamerica could possibly falsify the Book of Mormon,(in terms of being an ancient Mesoamerican document) with exception of it being populated by robots.
While the Book of Mormon is a religious text, it provides A LOT of background contextual information about the Book of Mormon culture. It tells us about social complexity, and what roles were played in society. It tells us about how they fought wars. It tells us about their government. All of these things can be compared against what scholars tell us happened in ancient Mesoamerica.
If, due to the fact that the Book of Mormon is a TRANSLATED document, we can't use any of the textual claims (because they might be translation artifacts) then the book really is so poorly translated it is meaningless, in terms of giving us genuine information from the authors.
Then there is the element that insists we don't really know anything about ancient Mesoamerica because most of their writings were destroyed. This element simply doesn't understand archaeology, which can actually provide MORE accurate information that written texts, which are often propaganda.
Last edited by Tator on Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
guy sajer wrote:A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional
You are delusional in every sense of the word, Charity.
Only if it is false, fanciful or derived from deception. You have yet to prove that. And you guys have been tyring for about 187 years. You think you would be able to come up with something in all that time. Something other than conjecture, denial, rumors, misinterpretatins.
guy sajer wrote:A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional
You are delusional in every sense of the word, Charity.
Only if it is false, fanciful or derived from deception. You have yet to prove that. And you guys have been tyring for about 187 years. You think you would be able to come up with something in all that time. Something other than conjecture, denial, rumors, misinterpretatins.
And other guys have been trying for longer than that to disprove the existence of leprechauns.
I repeat, Charity, you are delusional.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."