[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2014, 09:12 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Why is it a buncha atheists get all in a huff when someone tries to generalize atheism, and then turn around and heap a buncha generalizations on this here theist. Why dontcha all lay off the throttle for a minute to find out what the guy actually believes?

so then we can actually rip into him Angel

No wonder why we only get trolls around here. Dodgy

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
03-01-2014, 09:13 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am 'buying into fundie Christian rhetoric'?

Yes, it's fundamentalists who do most of the promulgating of the rhetoric you're using.

(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you insane?

No.

(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  The genetic evidence makes clear that the Book of Mormon is not accurate, to say the least.

While that's not really true, I will not argue for Book of Mormon historicity.

(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  I have said nothing inconsistent with that paper.

You've insisted that I was wrong in pointing out that there is in fact Near Eastern DNA in ancient North Americans.

(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  I will again say that you seem to misunderstand the research. That paper discusses the details of how many waves of migration there were - all of them from Asia.

My main point was that the migration waves were more complex than is traditionally thought, which is what the article shows. I said they were not necessarily from East Asia, and I could go dig up articles showing other data about migrations rooted in other areas, but like I said, I'm not really interested in wasting my time on this. It's not critical to my point, which you continue to avoid.

(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  There is no 'rhetorical zeal' going on, just simple refutation of obvious myth with science. I have not misrepresented the DNA data in any way.

Yes, you have. You have insisted that it undermines the accuracy Book of Mormon, which I have repeatedly explained is not true, given the text can be interpreted numerous different ways, with only more traditional and old interpretations being problematized by the data. You continue to ignore this point and presuppose that there is only one way to read the text, the way that is conclusively undermined by the DNA evidence. You've also ignored my point about not really caring about defending the historicity of the book. You are so convinced that I'm an apologist you have to defeat that you are ignoring all the points I'm making that don't fit your conceptualization of me. All you care about is winning an argument against a stupid theist, and you're willing to completely ignore repeated requests to actually engage my real concerns in the interest of selectively highlighting whatever claims, real or imagined, you think you can dismantle.

(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  If you do not wish to be challenged, I suggest you stay away from making ignorant claims.

I don't mind being challenged at all. I welcome it. I mind being misrepresented and having my appeals for better understanding ignored.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 09:16 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 08:53 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I'm ex mormon maklelan, I have followed this thread with interest. As a point of clarification, please could you tell us directly whether or not you believe the book of mormon to be a true and accurate historical document as claimed so by LDS church leaders?

I would say the evidence sits securely on the side of it not being historical, but I have no real investment in either position. It's not a focus of my attention.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 09:19 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:13 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am 'buying into fundie Christian rhetoric'?

Yes, it's fundamentalists who do most of the promulgating of the rhetoric you're using.

(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you insane?

No.

(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  The genetic evidence makes clear that the Book of Mormon is not accurate, to say the least.

While that's not really true, I will not argue for Book of Mormon historicity.

(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  I have said nothing inconsistent with that paper.

You've insisted that I was wrong in pointing out that there is in fact Near Eastern DNA in ancient North Americans.

(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  I will again say that you seem to misunderstand the research. That paper discusses the details of how many waves of migration there were - all of them from Asia.

My main point was that the migration waves were more complex than is traditionally thought, which is what the article shows. I said they were not necessarily from East Asia, and I could go dig up articles showing other data about migrations rooted in other areas, but like I said, I'm not really interested in wasting my time on this. It's not critical to my point, which you continue to avoid.

(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  There is no 'rhetorical zeal' going on, just simple refutation of obvious myth with science. I have not misrepresented the DNA data in any way.

Yes, you have. You have insisted that it undermines the accuracy Book of Mormon, which I have repeatedly explained is not true, given the text can be interpreted numerous different ways, with only more traditional and old interpretations being problematized by the data. You continue to ignore this point and presuppose that there is only one way to read the text, the way that is conclusively undermined by the DNA evidence. You've also ignored my point about not really caring about defending the historicity of the book. You are so convinced that I'm an apologist you have to defeat that you are ignoring all the points I'm making that don't fit your conceptualization of me. All you care about is winning an argument against a stupid theist, and you're willing to completely ignore repeated requests to actually engage my real concerns in the interest of selectively highlighting whatever claims, real or imagined, you think you can dismantle.

(03-01-2014 08:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  If you do not wish to be challenged, I suggest you stay away from making ignorant claims.

I don't mind being challenged at all. I welcome it. I mind being misrepresented and having my appeals for better understanding ignored.



So what do you claim as "True"??

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
03-01-2014, 09:23 AM (This post was last modified: 05-01-2014 08:59 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 02:11 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 01:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  OMG. Daniel McC came back !! Hey Mr. Mak, (are you Dr. Mak now ??) ... your ears must have been ringing. A month or two back I was being raked over the coals, and I mentioned that you were the ONLY real (theist) scholar that we've ever had here. (You TOTALLY demolished a couple people ... one a JW, as I recall... without batting an eye.) I saw you were at a conference I was trying to get to earlier this last year, (I think), out East with a couple others I respect. Your knowledge of Hebrew is pretty awesome. When you were here before, the discussion was abruptly left off after the notion of "compartmentalizing cognitive dissonances" had just begun. Maybe later that can be continued. It would be interesting to pick your brain, (as you must have to do a lot of that). Was it your "New Year's *resolution* to return here ? Tongue

Hi, Bucky! You were trying to get to SBL? It was a good time. It's in San Diego this coming year. You should definitely try to make it.

I appreciate the kind words. It's not Dr. Mak yet, but it's getting there. I am working as a scripture translation supervisor for the time being, but looking to start up my doctorate later this year. I recently finished another master's degree. If you're interested, you can find my thesis, "The Conceptualization of Deity in the Hebrew Bible in Cognitive Perspective," here.

It was not my new year's resolution to come back here, but I saw a spike in people arriving at my blog through a link posted here, so I thought I'd see what was up. Turns out it was a real old thread, but I thought I'd comment on some things Ralph Ellis said, and I poked around a bit afterward. I was on vacation, so I had the time. Today's my first day back at work, and this is digging more into my time than I like, so I will have to participate on a limited basis if I decide to keep commenting.

Thanks again for saying hi!

A long time ago Girly and HoC and I agreed that there essentially is no difference, on a practical basis between Eastern Tao, the highest levels of European (mystical/contemplative) Christianity, (see the "Cloud of the Unknowing"), and Agnosticism. I'm suggesting here that it might open a few eyes to actually go read David's (edit) Daniel's blog. He doesn't mindlessly accept Mormonism, but says he has found it useful. So what. We accept Kingsy. He finds Calvinism useful. I seriously hope that, as weird as it might seem, we might have another Kingsy here. I mean a Calvinist is the admin of this forum, and Daniel has never once "preached" Mormonism, just as Kingsy never preaches Calvinism. He can defend what he wants, or say, whatever he wants, or NOT say whatever he wants to say. BTW Dan, Ralph was pretty new here when you came here first. We didn't really know what to make of his weirdness. He has been back a few times since, and proved unable to answer even the most basic questions. Hope you choose to stick around after your "gauntlet" hazing. It's YOUR business, and no one else's what you choose to find useful, as nutty as it might seem to others.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
03-01-2014, 09:28 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 08:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Your response is incoherent both because its wording is confusing [1] and because it misrepresents the contents of my post [2].

[1] I still don't know what the phrase "belligerently brutalizing" is supposed to mean after reading your post several times since there is no object that relates to it.

"Strawman" is the object of "to start belligerently brutalizing," which itself is an infinitive verbal phrase that acts as the adverb of the clause it modifies, namely, "pulling out the strawman." An analogous syntactical construction would be, "he pulled out to guitar to start playing."

(03-01-2014 08:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  [2] At no point did I "pull out a straw man" or "assume that that [defending the historical accuracy of TBoM] is where you're headed"; I would appreciate it if you would retract these false accusations.

If you weren't pulling out a strawman, then you must not have been making reference to my arguments at all, but just using a response to one my posts as a springboard to a separate discussion. If this is the case, let me know and I'll be happy to apologize.

(03-01-2014 08:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  As far as I can tell, both EK's and my posts were on-topic because the accuracy of the information in The Book of Mormon is this discussion's topic.

It's not the topic of any discussion in which I'm participating. If you mean to say there's another discussion taking place, again, I'll be happy to apologize.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 09:30 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I'm suggesting here that it might open a few eyes to actually go read David's blog.

Yabut. Who's David? Angel

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 09:30 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:19 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  So what do you claim as "True"??

What can be shown to be true. I claim other things as edifying, inspiring, or instructive for me, but I don't claim that they are "true" in the sense you mean.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  A long time ago Girly and HoC and I agreed that there essentially is no difference, on a practical basis between Eastern Tao, the highest levels of European (mystical/contemplative) Christianity, (see the "Cloud of the Unknowing"), and Agnosticism. I'm suggesting here that it might open a few eyes to actually go read David's blog. He doesn't mindlessly accept Mormonism, but says he has found it useful. So what. We accept Kingsy. He finds Calvinism useful. I seriously hope that, as weird as it might seem, we might have another Kingsy here. I mean a Calvinist is the admin of this forum, and David has never once "preached" Mormonism, just as Kingsy never preaches Calvinism. He can defend what he wants, or say, whatever he wants, or NOT say whatever he wants to say. BTW David, Ralph was pretty new here when you came here first. We didn't really know what to make of his weirdness. He has been back a few times since, and proved unable to answer even the most basic questions. Hope you choose to stick around after your "gauntlet" hazing. It's YOUR business, and no one else's what you choose to find useful, as nutty as it might seem to others.

I appreciate the sentiment, Bucky (although it's Dan, not David. Dave's my brother).

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 09:36 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(03-01-2014 09:23 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 02:11 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Hi, Bucky! You were trying to get to SBL? It was a good time. It's in San Diego this coming year. You should definitely try to make it.

I appreciate the kind words. It's not Dr. Mak yet, but it's getting there. I am working as a scripture translation supervisor for the time being, but looking to start up my doctorate later this year. I recently finished another master's degree. If you're interested, you can find my thesis, "The Conceptualization of Deity in the Hebrew Bible in Cognitive Perspective," here.

It was not my new year's resolution to come back here, but I saw a spike in people arriving at my blog through a link posted here, so I thought I'd see what was up. Turns out it was a real old thread, but I thought I'd comment on some things Ralph Ellis said, and I poked around a bit afterward. I was on vacation, so I had the time. Today's my first day back at work, and this is digging more into my time than I like, so I will have to participate on a limited basis if I decide to keep commenting.

Thanks again for saying hi!

A long time ago Girly and HoC and I agreed that there essentially is no difference, on a practical basis between Eastern Tao, the highest levels of European (mystical/contemplative) Christianity, (see the "Cloud of the Unknowing"), and Agnosticism. I'm suggesting here that it might open a few eyes to actually go read David's blog. He doesn't mindlessly accept Mormonism, but says he has found it useful. So what. We accept Kingsy. He finds Calvinism useful. I seriously hope that, as weird as it might seem, we might have another Kingsy here. I mean a Calvinist is the admin of this forum, and David has never once "preached" Mormonism, just as Kingsy never preaches Calvinism. He can defend what he wants, or say, whatever he wants, or NOT say whatever he wants to say. BTW David, Ralph was pretty new here when you came here first. We didn't really know what to make of his weirdness. He has been back a few times since, and proved unable to answer even the most basic questions. Hope you choose to stick around after your "gauntlet" hazing. It's YOUR business, and no one else's what you choose to find useful, as nutty as it might seem to others.

Yes Mom we promise not to break the new toy. Besides this is not a contentious argument (well not from my side anyway) I think Mac is a fantastic scholar and could be a great addition around here. I wheedle KC the same way from time to time and consider him a good friend. We are just discussing the historicity of TBoM with a Scholar who is a Mormon who better to talk about this with? He seems to not take a literalist stance with it (something had he said at the beginning probably would have saved him a few pages of responses) but despite having read TBoM and looked into a few of it's claims I do not claim to be an expert on the subject.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: