Mormon apologists are necessarily cranks

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

[quote="Buffalo]

These sorts of dishonest tactics that Dr. Peterson likes to employ are very typical of cranks.

Well, he doesn't really have much choice in the matter. I'd be sympathetic to him if he weren't such an egomaniac.

[_stemelbow]

And thus, with one magisterial semantic gesture, such writers as Thomas Aquinas, Peter Kreeft, Justin Martyr, William Lane Craig, Origen, Maimonides, C. S. Lewis, Irenaeus, Keith Ward, Josephus, al-Ghazali, G. K. Chesterton, Alvin Plantinga, Plato, and Richard Swinburne are summarily dismissed.

This place is absolutely chock full of deep thinkers like Chip! ("Pretty much by definition," as the preeminently great DrW explains.)

It certainly makes one want to continue to engage them in conversation.

aahhh...just roll with it a little. We all realize many here aren't going to be reasonable. They just ain't. They don't want to be. There's a whole lot of an effort to be inflamatory and dogmatic (ironic since they seem so opposed to the dogmatism of the religious). methinks they want reaction. It helps them build the black and white opposition they so desperately need.

I don't get it...they're the atheists shooting themselves in the foot. I can't seem to help it either.

[_stemelbow]

Well, he doesn't really have much choice in the matter. I'd be sympathetic to him if he weren't such an egomaniac.

Takes one to know one, oh wait I thought I was going to try and stay out of this pejorative labeling game that is all the rage...

Just kidding with ya, but ego does seem to be the main culprit in all this angst. Let's all shed a little--I know it'd do me good.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've rolled with it more years than I care to count.

Occasionally, though, I ask myself why. I'm asking myself why again right now.

The discussions here are pretty thin gruel, by and large.

[_why me]

What is a crank?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29

"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted belief as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task.

Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and kook. A crank differs from a fanatic in that the subject of the fanatic's obsession is either not necessarily widely regarded as wrong or not necessarily a "fringe" belief. Similarly, the word quack is reserved for someone who promotes a medical remedy or practice that is widely considered to be ineffective; this term however does not imply any deep belief in the idea or product they are attempting to sell. Crank may also refer to an ill-tempered individual or one who is in a bad mood, but that usage is not the subject of this article.

Although a crank's beliefs seem ridiculous to experts in the field, cranks are sometimes very successful in convincing non-experts of their views. A famous example is the Indiana Pi Bill where a state legislature nearly wrote into law a crank result in geometry.

There is really no disputing this. You can't be a Mormon apologist (especially a professional apologist such as those published by the Maxwell Institute) and not also be a crank.

What is an apologist? An apologist is a person who defends what they believe in. It makes no difference just what one is defending. To call LDS apologists cranks just means that you have no idea what an apologist is.

[_Buffalo]

The politer term for crank is apologist. They're really synonymous.

And thus, with one magisterial semantic gesture, such writers as Thomas Aquinas, Peter Kreeft, Justin Martyr, William Lane Craig, Origen, Maimonides, C. S. Lewis, Irenaeus, Keith Ward, Josephus, al-Ghazali, G. K. Chesterton, Alvin Plantinga, Plato, and Richard Swinburne are summarily dismissed.

This place is absolutely chock full of deep thinkers like Chip! ("Pretty much by definition," as the preeminently great DrW explains.)

It certainly makes one want to continue to engage them in conversation.

You can object to the crank label all you wish, I but you know as well as I do that that the theories invented by Mormon apologists in defense of their faith are decidedly on the scholarly fringe.

[_jon]

I've rolled with it more years than I care to count.

Occasionally, though, I ask myself why. I'm asking myself why again right now.

The discussions here are pretty thin gruel, by and large.

Daniel, you spend what seems like a lot of posts being critical and belittling of this board. In a different thread you describe Mormon Dialogue as a much better board. If here is really that bad and the discussions here are 'pretty thin gruel' then why do you post here?
What do you get from it?

[_Buffalo]

What is an apologist? An apologist is a person who defends what they believe in. It makes no difference just what one is defending. To call LDS apologists cranks just means that you have no idea what an apologist is.

I won't pull a DCP, but I will say that when we say the word apologist were are generally referring to defenders of religious faith. That is the meaning I'm referring to.

[_Daniel Peterson]

why do you post here?

An excellent question. I have no good answer.

What do you get from it?

Exasperation. Other than that, not much.

Seriously.

[_stemelbow]

I've rolled with it more years than I care to count.

Occasionally, though, I ask myself why. I'm asking myself why again right now.

The discussions here are pretty thin gruel, by and large.

you are correct. Hanging here ain't for everyone. With all the seeming feverish frenzies you stir up among the masses for showing up, the question hits me too. What in the world?