Buffalo wrote:I'm not sure how much sophistication it takes to make jokes about Buffalo chips, or in Kevin's case, Graham crackers. Pretty weak stuff. It's very popular over at MAD, though.
Granted, that is weak stuff. I read it in a playful manner instead thinking he imagines it's some clever put-down. When read that way, I don't think it's all that bad--just silly banter. I kind of liked his quip about how old your Schtick is after talking about the age of the universe though. Again, maybe not the wittiest, but it gave me a smile. I don't keep a file on him so I don't have examples of his best stuff, but I do like the Monty Python references.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Themis wrote:I am not aware of any scholar, who can translate Egyptian languages, has translated any of the papyri we have into anything about Abraham.
That's a different issue.
Not really. They have translated the facsimiles as well.
Which means, then, that, although you actually already knew that the claim is disputed, you simply brushed that fact aside.
So why should I bother?
It's not disputed that the 3 facsimiles are part of the Book of Abraham and part of the translation Joseph claimed. There really is no real scholarly dispute that they do not translate into anything about Abraham. The dispute about the papyri is really just, well we don't see any Abraham story on the papyri we do have so it must have been some where else on the missing sections. This is not really honest since we have the facsimiles. Dr w statement is correct and not in any real dispute. In the end you cannot show any real dispute that the papyri we have that is agreed on he used to come up with the translation(facsimiles 1-3). It's really just apologetic desperation to say it's on some missing section.
I remember first reading the apologia about the missing papyri. It was obviously contrived and incorrect that I could not take it seriously. It these kinds of defenses that really erode credibility. Lets see, we don't see any Abraham in the papyri we do have, but we have funerary text. We also have facsimile 1 with that papyri in which Joseph did translate it. It also does not have any Abraham story in it, but it is a funerary document that goes with the other text found in the papyri. Now the other two facsimiles we not found on the papyri we do have also do not translate into Abraham story even though that is what Joseph translated it to, yet it to also translates into funerary documents. Hmm. Now why should I think some missing section is going to contain a Abraham story and not more funerary text? :)
Themis wrote: Well it would be nice Dan if you would actually back up your claim instead of participating in the pissing match.
Lets get honest here. When Dan posts, every tom, dick and jane wants to challenge what he is saying regardless how they are responding to him. He attracts posters because of who he is. And the pissing match starts usually from the critics. It just goes that way...nothing to do about it.
That's no excuse for not backing up assertion. But what. That's what you do all the time, so I can see why you think the way you do.
Daniel Peterson wrote:It's in print. And easily found.
No, I won't forgive you.
I don't admire your arrogant dogmatism, and won't pretend to do so.
I have noticed this as we as Cr W as well. When you don't want to provide sources, you claim not enough time, and then spend so much time posting with others about trivial matters, or perceived attacks.
DrW wrote: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.
It's in print. And easily found.
What I can find on the subject "in print" seems to be from apologetic websites. I find nothing in credible academic journals about any "disputed academic theory". I am sorry if you believe that material that cannot be printed in credible scientific journals constitutes an "academic dispute". At best it can be classified as an "apologetic response".
DrW wrote: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.
No, I won't forgive you.
I don't admire your arrogant dogmatism, and won't pretend to do so.
So long as everyone understands that, according to your lexicon, one who points out facts or makes assertions that cannot be refuted with evidence is engaging in "arrogant dogmatism", then I have no argument with your characterization.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
DrW wrote:So long as everyone understands that, according to your lexicon, one who points out facts or makes assertions that cannot be refuted with evidence is engaging in "arrogant dogmatism", then I have no argument with your characterization.
LOL. Pure denial.
No, DrW, you're arrogant.
Lots of people disagree with me -- including some who post here, like Dan Vogel -- but most do it without such stunningly dogmatic arrogance. You're, off-the-charts, perhaps the most arrogant dogmatist I've ever encountered.
(I'll have to think about that. I've met a two or perhaps three others who might give you some competition. Each of them had a doctorate, too. I still think you'd likely win.)
Lots of people disagree with me -- including some who post here, like Dan Vogel -- but most do it without such stunningly dogmatic arrogance. You're, off-the-charts, perhaps the most arrogant dogmatist I've ever encountered.
(I'll have to think about that. I've met a two or perhaps three others who might give you some competition. Each of them had a doctorate, too. I still think you'd likely win.)
DrW wrote:So long as everyone understands that, according to your lexicon, one who points out facts or makes assertions that cannot be refuted with evidence is engaging in "arrogant dogmatism", then I have no argument with your characterization.
LOL. Pure denial.
No, DrW, you're arrogant.
Lots of people disagree with me -- including some who post here, like Dan Vogel -- but most do it without such stunningly dogmatic arrogance. You're, off-the-charts, perhaps the most arrogant dogmatist I've ever encountered.
(I'll have to think about that. I've met a two or perhaps three others who might give you some competition. Each of them had a doctorate, too. I still think you'd likely win.)
Dr. Peterson,
It is truly stunning that someone such as you, who has traveled the world and defended Mormonism to all comers, would find someone like me (a mere 20 year apostate) to be at or near the top of his "arrogant dogmatist" roster.
I am humbled indeed (in a arrogantly dogmatic sort of way of course).
However, I do note that in spite of all of your protestations and name calling, you seem remarkably unable to refute with evidence very much, if anything, of what I have to say about the Mormon Church, Mormonism and theistic religion in general.
How can that be?
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
DrW wrote:It is truly stunning that someone such as you, who has traveled the world . . . would find someone like me . . . to be at or near the top of his "arrogant dogmatist" roster.
I agree. Yours is, in its way, a quite remarkable achievement.
DrW wrote:a mere 20 year apostate
Neither the duration of your apostasy nor, indeed, your specific ideological position accounts for your arrogant dogmatism.
DrW wrote:However, I do note that in spite of all of your protestations and name calling, you seem remarkably unable to refute with evidence very much, if anything, of what I have to say about the Mormon Church, Mormonism and theistic religion in general.
How can that be?
LOL. It isn't.
Lay not that flattering unction to your soul.
I just don't find it worthwhile to spend much time on someone as arrogantly dogmatic as you are.
DrW wrote:It is truly stunning that someone such as you, who has traveled the world . . . would find someone like me . . . to be at or near the top of his "arrogant dogmatist" roster.
I agree. Yours is, in its way, a quite remarkable achievement.
DrW wrote:a mere 20 year apostate
Neither the duration of your apostasy nor, indeed, your specific ideological position accounts for your arrogant dogmatism.
DrW wrote:However, I do note that in spite of all of your protestations and name calling, you seem remarkably unable to refute with evidence very much, if anything, of what I have to say about the Mormon Church, Mormonism and theistic religion in general.
How can that be?
LOL. It isn't.
Lay not that flattering unction to your soul.
I just don't find it worthwhile to spend much time on someone as arrogantly dogmatic as you are.
Ah, the artful dodge again.
You claim that I am arrogantly dogmatic because I make assertions that are counter to your unfounded belief. Yet when given the opportunity to refute what I say with evidence, you seldom, if ever, have the time.
Perhaps what you see as dogmatic arrogance is simply an unwillingness to discuss unfounded belief, fiction, myth, misrepresentations and magical thinking as if it represented fact or objective reality.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."