The voyage of Lehi and Company

[_harmony]

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.

What makes you think he hasn't considered the evidence for those ideas? Anyone standing in the checkout line of the grocery store is bombarded with "evidence" that he no doubt used to draw his own conclusions. He can draw from the newspapers, the news magazines, the news on tv and the radio. He doesn't have to read umpteen books and scholarly reports to know that Hale Bopp was a tragedy waiting to happen, that Scientology is based on manmade "doctrine", that the Moonies are totally out to lunch. Why do you think he lacks objectivity? Because he lumps the LDS church with those others? Surely you can come up with a better argument against that than simply calling him lacking in objectivity. Can't you?

[_maklelan]

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

No, you have a clear issue with taking orders from anyone. This seems to be remarkably standard in church cynics, and especially here.

What you see as talking down, I see as frustration that you either are incapable of seeing or refuse to see the point.

I understand your point quite well (as I have explained numerous times), I'm just explaining the implication of your point, namely that you think you're exempt from objectivity if you find something is stupid enough by your a priori estimation. You can't seem to engage that, but instead want to think reiterating the same tired crap over and over again is going to change this. You're incapable of engaging in an honest debate about this issue, and I'm not wasting any more of my time. I won't be reading or responding to any more of your posts.

[_Morrissey]

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

No, you have a clear issue with taking orders from anyone. This seems to be remarkably standard in church cynics, and especially here.

Holy crap. You really pulled this one out of your ass. So you that because I won't engage you on your terms that I don't take orders from anyone? (psst, please don't tell this to my boss.)

What you see as talking down, I see as frustration that you either are incapable of seeing or refuse to see the point.

I understand your point quite well (as I have explained numerous times)

Your responses suggest otherwise.

I'm just explaining the implication of your point, namely that you think you're exempt from objectivity if you find something is stupid enough by your a priori estimation.

No. Once again (and please pay attention this time), I think I am exempt from any obligation to take seriously claims that are fantastical, supernatural, magical, or wildly implausible.

Your are in the direction of the implication, but you grossly overstate it taking my quite qualified argument and applying it wholesale.

Jesus Hermione Christ, why is this simple, straightforward point so difficult for you to grasp?

You can't seem to engage that, but instead want to think reiterating the same tired crap over and over again is going to change this. You're incapable of engaging in an honest debate about this issue, and I'm not wasting any more of my time. I won't be reading or responding to any more of your posts.

I'm only reiterating it over and over again because you are either too dense or refuse to comprehend it. I consider this a quite honest debate. I cannot see in any way I am being dishonest through all of this. What you see as dishonesty on my part, I see as incomprehension on your part.

We do agree, however, that this is a waste of time. Your skull is thicker than Mick Jagger's lips.

[_harmony]

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

No, you have a clear issue with taking orders from anyone. This seems to be remarkably standard in church cynics, and especially here.

And you don't? Hello? Pot, meet Kettle!

I won't be reading or responding to any more of your posts.

Well, geez, mak. It's not like you were actually responding to his posts anyway. You were mostly responding to what you wished he'd said, instead of what he actually said.

[_maklelan]

And you don't? Hello? Pot, meet Kettle!

And where on earth do you find the indication that i have issues with authority?

Well, geez, mak. It's not like you were actually responding to his posts anyway. You were mostly responding to what you wished he'd said, instead of what he actually said.

Also mind-bogglingly off base.

[_harmony]

And you don't? Hello? Pot, meet Kettle!

And where on earth do you find the indication that i have issues with authority?

Where did you get the idea that you were authority?

Well, geez, mak. It's not like you were actually responding to his posts anyway. You were mostly responding to what you wished he'd said, instead of what he actually said.

Also mind-bogglingly off base.

Again, an egocentric observation, mak.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Maklelan,

Would you be kind enough to provide us with the sum total variations of "NHM" vis a vis a Semitic language? I offer this process to you in the hope your perspective on the matter might increase.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_maklelan]

Where did you get the idea that you were authority?

Again, an egocentric observation, mak.

Neither of these comments makes a lick of sense.

[_EAllusion]

It's not possible for a human being to give the same serious attention to all religious claims. There are numerous new religious movements with thousands of followers springing up and dying down constantly. Mak spent as much effort on Bwiti? Really? I'm pretty sure I can rapidly pull together a few hundred NRM's, of which I'm sure there is at least one that hasn't gotten more than a cursory glance.

I also don't think it is particularly controversial to argue that we should spend our time and talent on explanations with greater prior probability to the extent we are interested in efficiency in investigating the world. (Our desires, of course, can pull us in different directions.) You don't need to be a Bayesian to think that. In fact, I don't think you can intellectually function without implicitly accepting that. There's simply no way Mak, when seeking to explain X, takes every single theory of X (which is theoretically infinite) on equal grounds and treats all with the same weight. Prior probability isn't arbitrary dismissiveness. It's understanding that there's some explanatory virtue in an idea fitting in with what we do know and explanatory vice in an idea not fitting in with our framework of knowledge. If I'm missing a sandwich, the theory that my partner ate it is at the outset preferable to a theory that it was stolen by an invisible dragon. Evidence can upturn this, but prior probability tells us something about the quality of evidence needed and what we should be spending our limited resources on looking into. Any theory of knowing that doesn't account for prejudicing ideas that better cohere to our established frameworks of knowledge is incomplete.

[_maklelan]

It's not possible for a human being to give the same serious attention to all religious claims.

That wasn't the claim. I was asked if I gave the same consideration to every paradigm I encounter. I explained that I did, and I gave examples of religious paradigms with which I've had experience. The point was to show that when encountered with a religious claim I don't flippantly dismiss it, but take it seriously. My capacity to engage every single religious claim is irrelevant.