[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-01-2014, 01:18 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 01:00 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Maklelan,
You appear to be quite knowledgable, but that is just it, I get the "appearance" from a quick read of your posts. You however do not offer up much of this understanding that you wish to provide in these forums. The elloquent use of intellectual word salad tossed about at other posters do nothing for my understanding behind the "what" and "why" of your views.

IMO - you do come across as a bit pompus and seem to think everyone else should be a schooled theologin or shut up. It does not take a scholar to desire some evidence or valid explanations supporting any supernatural ideology.

Please give this community something to help us understand, rather than responding to posts with your sophisticated dialouge. And please avoid the word "rhetoric" as you seem to be obsessed with this word, and like to here yourself talk - this coming from the King of rehtoric.

Mak, just read the quoted post twice. That is, if you want my two cents.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 01:22 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 01:18 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Mak, just read the quoted post twice. That is, if you want my two cents.

You agree with that bs? Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 11:49 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 11:07 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yup and I did it cause it is a bad habit of mine when I type to capitalise for emphasis and I missed it when I went over the post for grammar and spelling. Nothing to do with deifying anything, just bad editing.

Fair enough, but I'll maintain the claim for the sake of argument
Do you see value in arguing a strawman?!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 01:31 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 12:24 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 12:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  How about some evidence to support those assertions? Drinking Beverage

Which assertions? The claims about the psychology of religion, or my claims that he appeals to such conceptualizations of science in his posts? If the former, I'm happy to post a helpful bibliography. If the latter, I don't really want to go open up all those tabs again and search through his posts again for his usage of the word "science," but if he comes here and insists that he never conceptualizes of science in such ways, I'll make the sacrifice. Having been around this block many times before, though, if I do go through all that effort, I am skeptical that you or he are going to directly engage the issue. It doesn't seem that this crowd is aware of these kinds of concerns or particularly prepared to address them.

No, your claims regarding Revenant. You reeled of a list of errors without any evidence. Just empty assertions.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 01:54 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 12:49 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  To be fair I was more flippant to you than you probably deserved and you are correct about the convicted conman statement. Joseph Smith Jr. was convicted of a misdemeanor crime that covers a large swath of undesirables from conmen to vagrants (their terms not mine).

In reality, Smith was never convicted of anything. The evidence that is touted as suggesting that are bills from a judge Neely and constable De Zeng that are ostensibly for a trial, but based on several factors, are known to have actually been for an "examination," or a pretrial hearing which was supposed to have lead to an actual trial by jury. Before that happened, however, Smith was given "leg bail" (i.e., told to scram).

(02-01-2014 12:49 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  If anything stating it how I did actually weakens my case since even if Smith was a well respected member of the community his tale is so far out of the realm of credible so as to not stand up to scrutiny. I have read the book of Mormon and between the huge amounts of things stated that are impossible to have happened knowing what we know of genetics and archeology and the simple fact that it reads like an 18th century man is trying to sound like he is speaking 16th century english, it comes off as an obvious fraud. The fact that to this day the LDS church acts like a well financed cult tends to confirm my suspicions.

What the Book of Mormon actually says and what it is characterized as saying are different things, and it is not univocal, contrary to popular opinion, but I don't disagree significantly with your assessment of it.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 01:55 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 12:53 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 12:46 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  What concerns are those? I honestly lost track.

Poopyhead. Tongue

Tongue
How does an honest request for clarification make me a "poopyhead"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 01:55 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 01:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Do you see value in arguing a strawman?!

I don't believe my claim is a strawman, and I've made a case for it. Would you like to respond to that, as well as to his response?

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
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

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 01:58 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(02-01-2014 01:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, your claims regarding Revenant. You reeled of a list of errors without any evidence. Just empty assertions.

I didn't call them errors, and even when he acknowledged he did do those things from time to time, I pointed out that they weren't flaws, but the perfectly natural functioning of the human mind. If you've got a concern with that, state it, but since Rev has already acknowledged the accuracy of my assessment, I see no reason to continue to imply that they're unevidenced and empty claims.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2014, 01:58 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(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

Fanboi. Dodgy

(02-01-2014 01:55 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 12:53 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Poopyhead. Tongue

Tongue
How does an honest request for clarification make me a "poopyhead"?

For losing track during written correspondence. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: