Jenifer Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 Bat asserts that using logic and not appealing to The standard works or The Bible or any other ahistorical documents, that the COJCOLDS is false and untenable. Refutations by FARMS, FAIR, and Jeff Lindsay articles are welcome, but will be taken with a grain of salt, due to their biased nature. Bat has decided that these Ad Hoc Hypotheses are based solely on the affirmation of faith in the implausible, and desires your non-conjectuatory answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenifer Posted March 16, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 Just in case you missed it, Bat is requesting that any non-conjecture defenses for the anachronisms of The Book Of Mormon be validated by actual factual scientific evidnce that is contemporart with the BoM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 Using Bat's criteria, the Bible, BOM, and faith in a higher being in general are false untenable. Not that Atheism is any more logical. It's good to hear he's still around anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 Does bat also assert that if he uses the words "straw man" and people will think his argument is more tenable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanstress70 Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 Bat must be REALLY bored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USNationalist Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 Your a pawn jennifer. heh, im kidding. But tell Bat to freaken halo with me. He told me he got it and live- but i was away from home and he hasnt been online since (which is odd because he seemed to have always been on line before). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheProudDuck Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 Jenifer's a pawn? Serve her up with cocktail sauce and a squeeze of lemon. (Dang ... the "r" key on my keyboard's sticking again...." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenifer Posted March 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by Outshined@Mar 16 2005, 07:33 AM Using Bat's criteria, the Bible, BOM, and faith in a higher being in general are false untenable. Not that Atheism is any more logical.It's good to hear he's still around anyway. Disbelief in the implausible is equally or less tenable than belief in unlikely superstition?Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenifer Posted March 17, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by Snow@Mar 16 2005, 09:36 AM Does bat also assert that if he uses the words "straw man" and people will think his argument is more tenable? Only if a strawman argument is actually present. For example, the famous FAIR argument:"Well if that makes the BoM false, then the Bible is also false".First of all, this argument is a strawman, as is my example, but I assure you, that if pressed, I could validate my examples.Second, making an attack against The Bible doesn't empower the Mormon Apologist. It weakens him/her. The Bible is considered as much of a divine scripture as Joseph Smith's Gold (but maybe they were plastic) plates.My arguments are more tenable if I use the words "straw man", if a straw man logical fallacy is being employed. Which is almost alwaysl.The answer to your question is, Tapir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amillia Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by Jenifer+Mar 17 2005, 01:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenifer @ Mar 17 2005, 01:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Mar 16 2005, 07:33 AM Using Bat's criteria, the Bible, BOM, and faith in a higher being in general are false untenable. Not that Atheism is any more logical.It's good to hear he's still around anyway. Disbelief in the implausible is equally or less tenable than belief in unlikely superstition?Really? Just words ~ of the unbeliever swirling around and around. ~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by Jenifer@Mar 17 2005, 01:34 AM Disbelief in the implausible is equally or less tenable than belief in unlikely superstition?Really? Certainly. It's the easy way out, isn't it?Only if a strawman argument is actually present. For example, the famous FAIR argument:"Well if that makes the BoM false, then the Bible is also false".First of all, this argument is a strawman, as is my example, but I assure you, that if pressed, I could validate my examples.Second, making an attack against The Bible doesn't empower the Mormon Apologist. It weakens him/her. The Bible is considered as much of a divine scripture as Joseph Smith's Gold (but maybe they were plastic) plates.This is particularly weak when you consider that LDS "attacks" on the Bible are almost always hyperbole on the part of the critic. For example, they say, "Joseph Smith made a prophecy that I think is false, therefore he's a false prophet". The LDS member replies, "Wait, what about Jonah, or any of the other Biblical prophets whose prophecies did not come to pass?" The critic then screams, "He's attacking the Bible!"Most cases of purported attacks on the Bible by LDS apologists are simply illustrations that the Bible has the same "weaknesses" that the critic is trying to find in the BOM, and is usually because critics are unwilling to apply the same scrutiny to their own beliefs as they are to the LDS Church.As for arguing about the BOM with an atheist, why bother? Why argue semantics with someone who doesn't even believe in God, let alone in a particular faith? It would be a waste of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Bat, if you're so desperate to post on LDS Talk that you'll use someone else's account, and the moderators know you're doing it, wouldn't it make more sense just to ask them to allow you back on? Then you could pick your own cool avatar and everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 Originally posted by Jenifer+Mar 16 2005, 11:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenifer @ Mar 16 2005, 11:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 16 2005, 09:36 AM Does bat also assert that if he uses the words "straw man" and people will think his argument is more tenable? Only if a strawman argument is actually present. For example, the famous FAIR argument:"Well if that makes the BoM false, then the Bible is also false".First of all, this argument is a strawman, as is my example, Which proves my supposition (that bat overuses "strawman").That is not a "strawman flaw". That is "applying a false analogy," or an "irrelevant comparison" or some such thing, depending on how you use it. Or, it may be a perfectly sound proposition if part or the other's argument is that the Bible is actually true.Better to not appeal to logical flaws if one doesn't understand what they are, else one may committ the logical fallacy of "faliure to understand that words have definitions." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.