Shut Your Mouth and Fake It

[_DrW]

Why, oh why, has this turned into a pissing match?

Whenever someon chimes in, like DrW, did and starts blathering about how religious folks are stupid and stuff, it inevitably turns into something like a pissing match.

"you're stupid for believing stuff."

"oh thanks. Does that mean really smart qualified people who believe stuff are stupid too"

Buffalo chimes in to help, "those who pretend to be qualified people and are religious are just stupid too".

DrW, "yep".

And there we have it.

Stemelbow,

I appreciate that you are frustrated. Defending the indefensible can be grueling work.

But I fail to see how your comments apply to this thread. Nowhere on this thread can one find any of the quotes that you attributed to me (or to Buff for that matter).

If you are going to be critical, why not use actual quotes instead of making things up as you go along?

You must know by now that making things up as one goes along is one of the negative attributes often ascribed to apologists, so why provide yet more ammunition?
_______________

by the way & for what it's worth, I also see you as a "gentleman crank" (most of the time).

[_Buffalo]

Just as your audience is pacified by your evasions, misdirections and self-serving rhetoric with a generous sprinkling of bad dad humor.

for what it's worth, I prefer Daniel Peterson's sense of humor to yours---I think his jokes are wittier and more creative. I'm sure many find the opposite to be the case. Different jokes for different folks I guess.

Also for what it's worth, I prefer somewhat more substantive back and forth instead of an all out pissing match. I'm sure that's not just me.

I'm sure there will always be a market for dad humor.

[_Buffalo]

Also for what it's worth, I prefer somewhat more substantive back and forth instead of an all out pissing match. I'm sure that's not just me.

It's me, too.

This sort of thing becomes very boring very quickly. And irritating, if you get involved in it.

Is my memory faulty? I seem to recall that Buffalo (Chip) once posted more substantively. Anyway, I haven't seen him do much of that for a very long time. Maybe he never actually did.

I don't mean to be dramatic, but, really, I'm beginning to think that I'll just ignore him. Life is better that way.

By more substantively, you mean less bickering with apologists, more issues focused? Yes, probably.

[_Darth J]

My ass is still tat free.

A disputed claim.

We want evidence, not assertions (no pun intended), Just Me.

[_Yoda]

For *ME* it is not authentic to continue down the prescribed Mormon path.

I think that there are many variants on walking the prescribed Mormon path. Going down the NOM road allows one to pick and choose that road a little more thoughtfully, I have found.

Probably the biggest change for me has been to discontinue wearing the garment of the holy priesthood. It was no longer congruent with my beliefs.

The garments have never bothered me. The biggest change for me had been learning to say "No," and not feeling guilty about it.

There is nothing wrong with turning down a calling if you think it is going to be too taxing on your family time. There is nothing wrong with telling your auxiliary leader that you are going to be gone for two Sundays, and finding a sub so you can go on vacation.

One of my brothers-in-law is a Stake President and the other one is in the Bishopric. We were all gathered at a family reunion at the beach. I saw them go crazy trying to figure out how to go back and forth between their perspective ward/stake and try to enjoy things at the reunion. I flat-out told both of them...."This is ridiculous. The Lord expects you to put family first. He gave you counselors for a reason. Now use them!"

They both laughed and said I was right. Of course I am! ;-)

[_Themis]

Whenever someon chimes in, like DrW, did and starts blathering about how religious folks are stupid and stuff, it inevitably turns into something like a pissing match.

"you're stupid for believing stuff."

"oh thanks. Does that mean really smart qualified people who believe stuff are stupid too"

Buffalo chimes in to help, "those who pretend to be qualified people and are religious are just stupid too".

DrW, "yep".

And there we have it.

YOu are being unfair to Dr W. He never in this thread said what you are asserting. He was telling his story about how his wife came to find out about much of the troublesome information about the church because he was asked to.

Now Stem and Dan SHUT UP AND START FAKING IT :)

[_jon]

Whenever someon chimes in, like DrW, did and starts blathering about how religious folks are stupid and stuff, it inevitably turns into something like a pissing match.

"you're stupid for believing stuff."

"oh thanks. Does that mean really smart qualified people who believe stuff are stupid too"

Buffalo chimes in to help, "those who pretend to be qualified people and are religious are just stupid too".

DrW, "yep".

And there we have it.

YOu are being unfair to Dr W. He never in this thread said what you are asserting. He was telling his story about how his wife came to find out about much of the troublesome information about the church because he was asked to.

Now Stem and Dan SHUT UP AND START FAKING IT :)

[_stemelbow]

Stemelbow,

I appreciate that you are frustrated. Defending the indefensible can be grueling work.

Pep pep.. more of the same huh? there is room for some reasoned dialogue, on at least some topics. It seems you will dispute that a religionist can participate in reasoned dialogue. that's the tone and impression I get from your posts. That's why I said what I said--it seems you instigated the pissing match--not that such a match only takes one person.

You do seem to be a good pisser though. have fun.

[_stemelbow]

YOu are being unfair to Dr W. He never in this thread said what you are asserting. He was telling his story about how his wife came to find out about much of the troublesome information about the church because he was asked to.

Now Stem and Dan SHUT UP AND START FAKING IT :)

Heya Themis,

I just read most of this thread this afternoon when I logged on. I said a thing or two early on, yesterday. Anyway, it seems to me that DrW first post here was suggesting that believing stuff automatically puts one diametrically opposed to critical thinking. From there it all went down hill, so I made my assessment as I did. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the pissing match started after that. I can't tell.

[_DrW]

Also for what it's worth, I prefer somewhat more substantive back and forth instead of an all out pissing match. I'm sure that's not just me.

It's me, too.

This sort of thing becomes very boring very quickly. And irritating, if you get involved in it.

Is my memory faulty? I seem to recall that Buffalo (Chip) once posted more substantively. Anyway, I haven't seen him do much of that for a very long time. Maybe he never actually did.

I don't mean to be dramatic, but, really, I'm beginning to think that I'll just ignore him. Life is better that way.

Dr. Peterson,

Speaking of substance, you made a bald assertion that there is an "academic dispute" regarding the the original provenance and purpose of papyri from which the Book of Mormon was claimed to have been "translated". Perhaps you would care to respond to my request for credible supporting evidence for your claim.

You will forgive me if I point out that your tactic of claiming 'not enough time to adequately explain things', and then resorting to complaints about process and ad hominem attacks when it becomes clear that the attempts to defend indefensible can no longer working (if they ever did) are becoming transparent.