The voyage of Lehi and Company

[_maklelan]

True enough. As objective thinkers, we are able to separate the reasonable from the unreasonable from the truly ludicrous. Mormonism falls in the final category.

So the appropriation of the title "objective thinker" arrogates to you the ability to spot falsehoods a priori? What a fantastical irony.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sir,

Have you considered how many variations of NHM exist? Also, have you thought that NHM could simply be testament that someone simply inscribed their initials on a rock much in the same way a teenager might inscribe his initials in a picnic table? In other words, it is, very literally, much ado about nothing?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Morrissey]

True enough. As objective thinkers, we are able to separate the reasonable from the unreasonable from the truly ludicrous. Mormonism falls in the final category.

So the appropriation of the title "objective thinker" arrogates to you the ability to spot falsehoods a priori? What a fantastical irony.

Umm, I think I spoke at length to this earlier when I pointed out to you that my conclusions viz Mormonism are based on decades of experience and investigation.

Nonetheless, yes, I think I can spot certain falsehoods a priori. For example, a priori, I recognize that the 911 conspiracy stories are BS. A priori I recognize that there never was an evil overlord named Xenu. I recognize a priori that an angel with a flaming sword sent to tjreaten a man to f*** women not his wife on pain of death is a crock of sh**.

You seem to think that we have some moral and/or intellectual obligation to give every fantastic, supernatural, magical claim a priori credence. This is a ridiculous position.

[_maklelan]

Umm, I think I spoke at length to this earlier when I pointed out to you that my conclusions viz Mormonism are based on decades of experience and investigation.

And I responded that you were speaking generally to very specific evidence. You didn't respond, so don't talk down to me as if you have some intellectual edge.

Nonetheless, yes, I think I can spot certain falsehoods a priori. For example, a priori, I recognize that the 911 conspiracy stories are BS. A priori I recognize that there never was an evil overlord named Xenu. I recognize a priori that an angel with a flaming sword sent to tjreaten a man to f*** women not his wife on pain of death is a crock of sh**.

You seem to think that we have some moral and/or intellectual obligation to give every fantastic, supernatural, magical claim a priori credence. This is a ridiculous position.

And that's why you lack objectivity. Stop trying to imply your intellect allows you to transcend the need for objectivity.

[_harmony]

You seem to think that we have some moral and/or intellectual obligation to give every fantastic, supernatural, magical claim a priori credence. This is a ridiculous position.

And that's why you lack objectivity. Stop trying to imply your intellect allows you to transcend the need for objectivity.

What the heck? You're saying he lacks objectivity because he refuses to accept Hale Bopp, Scientology, the Hare Krishnas, the Moonies, and wicca?

[_Morrissey]

Umm, I think I spoke at length to this earlier when I pointed out to you that my conclusions viz Mormonism are based on decades of experience and investigation.

And I responded that you were speaking generally to very specific evidence. You didn't respond, so don't talk down to me as if you have some intellectual edge.

And you completely miss the point as to why I do not see a need to investigate every single claim made by believers and/or apologists.

Nonetheless, yes, I think I can spot certain falsehoods a priori. For example, a priori, I recognize that the 911 conspiracy stories are BS. A priori I recognize that there never was an evil overlord named Xenu. I recognize a priori that an angel with a flaming sword sent to tjreaten a man to f*** women not his wife on pain of death is a crock of sh**.

You seem to think that we have some moral and/or intellectual obligation to give every fantastic, supernatural, magical claim a priori credence. This is a ridiculous position.

And that's why you lack objectivity. Stop trying to imply your intellect allows you to transcend the need for objectivity.

Geez, you refuse to get it, don't you?

It's not my intellect that allows me to transcend the need for objectivity in certain cases, it is the nature of the claims advanced. Certain claims justifiable demand an objective approach to investigation. Certain other claims do not, including, specifically, the fantastical, supernatural, magical, and the overwhelmingly implausible.

Nor is what you demand reasonable from a practical perspective. If we humans, with limited time and cognitive ability, were to objectively investigate every claim advanced by every crackpot, we would be quickly overwhelmed. We, quite naturally and reasonably, adopt time saving methods in which we screen (using whatever criteria we choose) for claims that merit our further time and attention. My personal filters tend to screen out claims that are fantastical, supernatural, magical, or overwhelmingly implausible. You use different filters. Others use other filters. What you ascribe to lack of objectivity (and character flaw), I ascribe to good ol' common sense.

Moreover, given that decades-long process of investigation, thought, introspection, soul searching, etc. have conclusively shown to me that Mormonism is a false, man-made religion, to what end should I now engage in investigating every single claim advanced by apologists for the purpose of calming the nerves of the wavering faithful and who are emotionally and at times professionally and financially invested in Mormonism being true?

Beyond that, I find that the NHM issue is far more parsimoniously and plausibly explained by Joseph Smith simply got a lucky hit, in the midst of many, many, many misses. (That is even assuming that I concede the significance of the evidence, which I do not.)

[_maklelan]

What the heck? You're saying he lacks objectivity because he refuses to accept Hale Bopp, Scientology, the Hare Krishnas, the Moonies, and wicca?

No, because he claims he doesn't have to consider evidence for ideas he a priori believes to be silly. That's the very definition of a person who lacks objectivity.

[_maklelan]

Geez, you refuse to get it, don't you?

I told you to stop pretending to talk down to me.

It's not my intellect that allows me to transcend the need for objectivity in certain cases, it is the nature of the claims advanced.

That nature, of course, being defined exclusively by your subjective intelligence, since the evidence is irrelevant. The claim is then that you're intellect grants you exemption from digging any further than your initial impressions. Stop wasting my time with this garbage.

[_Morrissey]

Geez, you refuse to get it, don't you?

I told you to stop pretending to talk down to me.

I don't recall agreeing to take orders from you.

What you see as talking down, I see as frustration that you either are incapable of seeing or refuse to see the point. Harmony appears to get the point just fine, but for some reason, you cannot.

It's not my intellect that allows me to transcend the need for objectivity in certain cases, it is the nature of the claims advanced.

That nature, of course, being defined exclusively by your subjective intelligence, since the evidence is irrelevant.

Not only by my subjective intelligence, but also, I would imagine, by the subjective intelligence of many, many other people who, like me, tend not to grant a priori credence to the fantastical, supernatural, magical, and wildly implausible.

The claim is then that you're intellect grants you exemption from digging any further than your initial impressions. Stop wasting my time with this garbage.

It's only garbage because, frankly, you are apparently too thick to grasp what is really a very simple, straightforward point.

What's really time wasting is your stubborn intransigence to concede a simple and obvious point.

If you want garbage, you need not look any further than NHM as evidence that a 19th century fabrication is actually a historical record of a lost, large pre-Columbian, Christ worshiping, horse rearing, chariot driving, steel sword wielding, etc. civilization, as wildly implausible and fantastical as this seems.

[_Morrissey]

What the heck? You're saying he lacks objectivity because he refuses to accept Hale Bopp, Scientology, the Hare Krishnas, the Moonies, and wicca?

No, because he claims he doesn't have to consider evidence for ideas he a priori believes to be silly. That's the very definition of a person who lacks objectivity.

Apparently according to Maklelan, I am intellectually and/or morally required to grant Hale Bopp, Scientology, the Hare Krishnas, the Moonies, and wicca (not to mention 911 conspiracy theories, alien abductions, crop circles, leprechauns, faries, etc.) a priori credibility?