Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

[_EAllusion]

It is standard among atheist philosophers, atheist communities, and individual atheist self-descriptions to think of atheism as lack of belief in deities or something close to that. When person describes him or herself as an atheist, chances are that's the definition they are working off of.

Likewise, agnosticism as it was originally coined and is generally used by atheists would describe that as the position that knowledge of God(s) is either in practice or in principle not possible.

They describe different categories. One can be both agnostic and atheist or agnostic and theist. Ditto for the reverse.

This nomenclature is preferable because it is more efficient at communicating nuances in views about the existence of gods, aligns with how the terms are used by the people who categorize themselves in that manner, and makes the most etymological sense.

It is true that it is popular for some people to use agnosticism to refer to what atheists will call weak atheism - a subcategory of atheism meaning mere nonbelief in deities. A lot of self-described agnostics seem to prefer that term to avoid the intensely negative connotation the word "atheist" has built up due to religious prejudice. When a person says they are agnostic, I know I personally would probably label what they are thinking atheist. I tend not to begrudge them for it unless they feel the need to define atheism for atheists in a way they wouldn't themselves, especially if it involves a strawman argument against atheist thought.

( I'd call atheism a rejection of belief in deities just so we distinguish between those who are not believing in a concept they are aware of and those who simply do not have belief. I don't think it makes sense to call newborns atheists. )

[_beastie]

The difference between atheism and agnosticism has been patiently explained more times than I can count on these boards. It does not seem to penetrate.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I need to be extremely careful here, so as not to be accused (as I frequently am) of swooping in and trying to make this thread about me.

Dan:

Impressive list. I mean that sincerely.

Can you answer a question of mine?

Feel free to start another thread so as not to derail this one if you so desire.

I know the Spalding-Rigdon theory is not respected by you, but I wonder if you could give me your take on why there are so many similarities between Joseph Smith's account of finding golden plates and Spalding's account in his Roman story?

see here: http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap04.htm

I would appreciate any explanation you have for this. Thanks.

You're right that I find it very, very difficult to take the Spalding-Rigdon at all seriously. And this list of alleged parallels or similarities illustrates part of the reason why:

I really don't mean to be flippant about this, but I don't see the proposed similarities as being all that striking or significant. I truly don't. Now, I understand that the weighing of proposed parallels is, to a degree, a subjective thing, but I, at least, just can't get worked up about these. In fact, several of them seem to me to be straining quite a bit.

I suppose I'd be willing to discuss them on a separate thread, if you would like.

[_Mary]

Oh for Pete's sake.... Joey asks DCP some questions and he answers them in good faith and with context....the man can't win.

Win what? Is this a game? I thought people were just exchanging thoughts here.

Some Schmo, (I had it in my brain that you were English and would get the expression), it just means, in my neck of the woods, that Daniel's in a catch 22 situation. From where I'm viewing he needs (and has) a hide like a rhinoseros to take the constant lambasting he gets here, in terms of aspersions on his character, often, in my opinion unfairly.

[_Some Schmo]

Some Schmo, (I had it in my brain that you were English and would get the expression), it just means, in my neck of the woods, that Daniel's in a catch 22 situation. From where I'm viewing he needs (and has) a hide like a rhinoseros to take the constant lambasting he gets here, in terms of aspersions on his character, often, in my opinion unfairly.

I'm kind of surprised you call the way people treat him "unfairly." Are you unaware of his posting history? You make it sound as though he's an innocent victim in all of this.

I'm always surprised by this type of reaction. Why would people bother posting the things they do if they didn't think DCP inspired it?

Speaking strictly for myself, I am only articulating what I perceive, with constant awareness that I'm speaking only of what's portrayed by his online persona. He could be a great guy in person, but if that's the case, he tends to hide it behind a lot of insecure ranting (dressed up as some kind of intellectual exchange - the great irony).

Denial Peterson is a superb descriptor of his online character. Quite frankly, I don't think he has a thick hide. Not only do I believe he likes this negative attention (it is, after all, attention), but actually thrives on it. In some ways, I even suspect he needs it. I contribute some largely out of pity.

[_AlmaBound]

Not only do I believe he likes this negative attention (it is, after all, attention), but actually thrives on it. In some ways, I even suspect he needs it.

Actually, the truth is, Dr. Peterson has created at least three or four sock-puppets here as part of some absurd Twilight Zone-type attention scheme in which he, by using his sock-puppets to abuse himself, thereby establishes the opportunity for the "sympathy vote," as well as exorcises his own demons by attacking himself.

(cue Twilight Zone theme music)

Starring Dr. Scratch, Gadianton, and Joey as the Three Nephite alter-egos of Daniel Peterson.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Starring Dr. Scratch, Gadianton, and Joey as the Three Nephite alter-egos of Daniel Peterson.

Dang. I've been outed.

Back to the drawing board.

And, of course, trying really hard not to yield to my persistent temptation to try to hijack this thread and make it about me.

[_AlmaBound]

Dang. I've been outed.

Back to the drawing board.

You'd have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't have been for those meddling kids.

[_Mary]

I'm kind of surprised you call the way people treat him "unfairly." Are you unaware of his posting history? You make it sound as though he's an innocent victim in all of this.

Some Schmo, it's just my opinion. When you guys start at each other, I never know if it's all like the Houses of Parliament where they snipe at each other then shake hands after, or whether it's really nasty. What I do get is that most active LDS love their religion and have faith in it and are defending against constant attack. I didn't say anyone was perfect, I guess I just don't get all the personal sniping.

I'm always surprised by this type of reaction. Why would people bother posting the things they do if they didn't think DCP inspired it?

Because perhaps DCP answered Joey's questions in a way that would put his contributions to this and any board in perspective. It's ultimately a small, but possibly interesting part of what he is and what his life is all about. Even smaller for Bill H, I should imagine, who probably doesn't take as much interest as Daniel. I got his post without reading anything negative into it in terms of reflections on his own character.

I just thought you were being unfair is all.

Speaking strictly for myself, I am only articulating what I perceive, with constant awareness that I'm speaking only of what's portrayed by his online persona. He could be a great guy in person, but if that's the case, he tends to hide it behind a lot of insecure ranting (dressed up as some kind of intellectual exchange - the great irony).

I don't perceive Daniel's online persona in that way.

Denial Peterson is a superb descriptor of his online character. Quite frankly, I don't think he has a thick hide. Not only do I believe he likes this negative attention (it is, after all, attention), but actually thrives on it. In some ways, I even suspect he needs it. I contribute some largely out of pity.

Daniel usually gets my respect and attention in his posts because he, like most of the other apologists, knows his stuff and still believes and is actually willing to come over to the board, despite some of the growling and slathering dogs that pounce on him as soon as he gets here (just an expression there Some Schmo no offence intended!). This board would be a boring place without his contribution and some of the other higher profile posters, who are actually willing to put their 'real life' name to their posts.

I don't usually get involved in this kind of stuff Some Schmo, just thought I'd give my opinion.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't usually get involved in this kind of stuff Some Schmo, just thought I'd give my opinion.

Nothing you said in your post was offensive to me, and I respect your point of view.

Quite frankly, I only read a very small percentage of what DCP writes, and comment on even less. I'm largely ambivalent to his presence here. Sometimes he amuses me, sometimes he inspires pity, but most of the time, I'm indifferent. I just like to comment for the sake of commenting (fleshing out thoughts), and that's it.

Besides, DCP has made it abundantly clear he thinks little of me and my opinion, so I'm free to say what I want confident that he won't care.