LDS

[Pixel42]

I've asked several times for your intake about this fraud, but haven't seen any reply yet.
Ignoring the scam won't make it go away.
Tomorrow morning the BoA will still be a fraudulent hoax, after all.

It's a long thread so you may have missed it, but skyrider has actually acknowledged the problems presented by the BoA:

My comments have centered on the BoM. The Book of Abraham poses extremely difficult challenges for LDS apologists. There is no question about that. Moreover, it must be admitted that those challenges cast a shadow on the BoM.

I remembered because such an admission is so unusual on this thread.

 

[RandFan]

Mere mortals who do not meet the criteria need not bother even considering the matter.

And they wouldn't be able to see the emperor's new clothes.

 

[joobz]

Mere mortals who do not meet the criteria need not bother even considering the matter.

So you believe you are super special and have super secret knowledge not available to the lesser (unworthy) people you are talking to?

 

[Janadele]

An appropriate saying comes to mind... there are none so blind as they who will not see.

 

[Pixel42]

An appropriate saying comes to mind... there are none so blind as they who will not see.

Indeed, entirely appropriate to Mormons who refuse to see the abundant evidence that Smith and all his works were fraudulent.

 

[Akhenaten]

An appropriate saying comes to mind... there are none so blind as they who will not see.

You'll need to be providing those links before you can accuse anyone of refusing to see them.

 

[RandFan]

An appropriate saying comes to mind... there are none so blind as they who will not see.

And Mormons have a mechanisms for not seeing. "What does it have to do with your salvation"?

 

[MIKILLINI]

An appropriate saying comes to mind... there are none so blind as they who will not see.

Apparently, as you can't see yourself in the mirror*, this must qualify as a self explanation.



* No Vampire references intended.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Are you unaware that there are several varieties of atheism?

Are you aware of the fraudulent conditions attributed to the Book of Abraham?

 

[skyrider44]

You emphasize exactly the point I am raising.

Continued

The good Reverend uses the content of The Acts of the Apostles to demonstrate that the events in The Acts of the Apostles are, in fact, factual.

What do you find malevolent about that? Dr. Gabby wisely went to the first source. Is there some other source extant that you consider more reliable?

Events, which, BTW, include Paul being said to say that he met Jesus who was said to be said to be "the Christ" only after that Jesus was dead.

Please consider recasting this "sentence." I cannot decipher what you're trying to say.

: If zombi messages form an admittedly dead person do not qualify to be classed as "superstition", especially when those zombi messages differ significantly form what is said to be the report of those said to be witnesses of the original delivery of the message, then there is no sense of using the word at all.

The above is a syntactic train wreck. I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're trying to say.

You also overlook the good Reverend's sleight-of-word in pretending that all "superstition" is based upon "fear" and, since belief in the Jesus who was said to be said to be "the christ" is not based on fear (even though those who do not so believe will be tortured forever) such belief is not superstition.

Gobbledygook.

In reality, any belief based upon supernatural causality is properly referred to as "superstiton":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

For a comprehensive, complete definition of "superstition" in all its forms, consult Webster's 2,600-page Third New International Dictionary Unabridged.

: The superstitions of your sect are not very interesting to me.

All of the foregoing notwithstanding, eh?

I am, however, fascinated when those superstitions lead you to make unevidenced claims about reality, and claim that I should believe those unevidenced claims because you have faith that evidence to support them may be discovered in the future.

You continue to reveal that you do not believe science is a dynamic, "living" entity.

 

[Cleon]

Are you aware of the fraudulent conditions attributed to the Book of Abraham?

He is, actually, but he refuses to address them.

A bit like how fredd carr will refuse to address any questions about Xenu or L. Ron Hubbard's fraudulent biography by the Church of Scientology.

Which is a shame, because I am genuinely interested in their perspectives on the topic(s).

 

[joobz]

An appropriate saying comes to mind... there are none so blind as they who will not see.

You continue to act superior, even going so far as to call others blind to your super special, secret vision. All anyone has asked of you is to provide evidence for your claims. Instead of humbly providing such information, you wallow in a your own sense of superiority.

 

[Lucian]

You'll need to be providing those links before you can accuse anyone of refusing to see them.

Maybe she did provide them, but they are invisible to us because of our selective blindness. Or perhaps English works the same way Egyptian hieroglyphs do: if you read it the correct way, it has a completely different and unrelated meaning from the one the blind nonbeliever sees. So what looks to us like some sort of faith-based waffle could really mean, "Hey, look, I found some pre-Columbian horsies, and here's the irrefutable proof!"

 

[joobz]

What do you find malevolent about that? Dr. Gabby wisely went to the first source. Is there some other source extant that you consider more reliable?

It's not malevolent. It is just a bad argument. It is called circular reasoning. It would be like demonstrating the truth of Stephen King's Dark Tower series because it tells internally consistent narratives. One must rely upon external sources/evidence in order to confirm the veracity of a text.

 

[Craig4]

An appropriate saying comes to mind... there are none so blind as they who will not see.

This would be appropriate if it were in reference to a moment of introspection on your part. As is, I'm going to guess that this is not you engaging in some much needed self assessment and therefore adds nothing.

 

[MIKILLINI]

He is, actually, but he refuses to address them.

A bit like how fredd carr will refuse to address any questions about Xenu or L. Ron Hubbard's fraudulent biography by the Church of Scientology.

Which is a shame, because I am genuinely interested in their perspectives on the topic(s).

I am interested in those perspectives as well, but it appears there is a stopping point with them: Once questions lead to where these foundations of religion began, there is a tendency to shut up and suddenly become "Sophisticated Mother Superior Librarians" and/or "We don't question the man behind the curtain"

 

[MIKILLINI]

Continued







Please consider recasting this "sentence." I cannot decipher what you're trying to say.



The above is a syntactic train wreck. I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're trying to say.

Feigning confusion doesn't suit you well Skyrider44...Are you unaware of that fact? I am, however, aware that you will not respond to this post.

 

[jsfisher]

Feigning confusion doesn't suit you well Skyrider44...Are you unaware of that fact? I am, however, aware that you will not respond this post.

Although Skyrider44 continues to evade rather than address, I'd cut him a little slack on this. Some of Slowvehicle's sentence constructions were very hard to parse.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Continued

What do you find malevolent about that? Dr. Gabby wisely went to the first source. Is there some other source extant that you consider more reliable?

Defend your uncivil accusation that I find the good Reverend's prattle 'malevolent".

There is no source for verifying the "events" in The Acts of the Apostles outside The Acts of the Apostles, which is exactly my point. Circular apologetics may inspire some. On the other hand, I am not impressed by crepuscular logic.

Please consider recasting this "sentence." I cannot decipher what you're trying to say.

This does not surprise me. Here it is, again:
"Events, which, BTW, include Paul being said to say that he met Jesus who was said to be said to be "the Christ" only after that Jesus was dead."

...among the "events" said to be "attested to" in The Acts of the Apostles is what is said to be Paul's "encounter" with a person called "Jesus", of whom it was said to be said that he was said to be "the Christ"...and encounter that took place after that person was dead...

The above is a syntactic train wreck. I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're trying to say.

Consider reading for comprehension

Gobbledygook.

No, just a nuanced demonstration that your contention that the good Reverend is NOT indulging in, even depending upon, circular reasoning and special pleading is incorrect.

Paraprase of the good Reverend's position: "My superstiution is NOT superstition because I define it as not being superstitious..."

For a comprehensive, complete definition of "superstition" in all its forms, consult Webster's 2,600-page Third New International Dictionary Unabridged.

Thanks for the link. Oh, right--you didn't provide one.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superstition
(short definition)
"a belief or way of behaving that is based on fear of the unknown and faith in magic or luck : a belief that certain events or things will bring good or bad luck"
(full definition)
1a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/superstition
"-excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings:
(he dismissed the ghost stories as mere superstition)
-a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief:
(she touched her locket for luck, a superstition she had had since childhood)

...interesting that OED neither holds that superstition is fear-dependent, nor agrees with the goor Reverend's attempt at etymology...

I can play your game of argumentum ad lexicon, but it only serves to demonstrate your fondness for cherry-picking.

All of the foregoing notwithstanding, eh?

Yep. The superstitons of your sect do not interest me greatly. I do find the reasons given for clinging to a-historical, irrational, unevidenced contrafactual claims to be interesting, in a groteque sort of way...

You continue to reveal that you do not believe science is a dynamic, "living" entity.

How is it that waiting for evidence of your pie-in-the-sky claims that evidence some day may be found gives you leave to make this false and uncivil claim? Show me evidence; practical, empirical, objective evidence, for the existence of the anachronistic claims about the pre-Colombian americas made in the BoA and I will regard it with fascination.

 

[RandFan]

For a comprehensive, complete definition of "superstition" in all its forms, consult Webster's 2,600-page Third New International Dictionary Unabridged.

Let's take a look at come classical superstitions.

• Don't break mirrors.
• Don't walk under a ladder.
• Don't cross the path of a black cat.
• Don't open an umbrella indoors.

Why are these superstitious? They presume cause and affect relationships between them and the events of one's life. These relationships can only be supernatural.



If you pray thinking that god can intervene then you believe in supernatural cause and effect.

Webster's 2,600-page Third New International Dictionary Unabridged

Does nothing to alter the facts. religioun isn't simply, or just, superstition. However, any religious belief that requires supernatural explanation for any cause and affect is ipso facto superstitious by definition. Magical thinking is superstition.

• Laying on of hands.
• Intercessory prayer.
• Sacred olive oil.
• Any belief that Mormon garments provide literal protection.
• Belief that god intervenes in the affairs of humans.

In an enlightened time superstitions have come to be seen as quaint and ignorant. Religion on the other hand is seen as respectable and mature. It's not simplistic childish customs in hopes of warding off bad luck. The nature of superstition is irrational fear. Any person who fear losing his or her faith because of potential negative consequences is superstitious by definition.