Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
32 online now:
Faith, PaulK (2 members, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,981 Year: 19,017/19,786 Month: 1,437/1,705 Week: 243/446 Day: 41/98 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   is it possible that....
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 55 (17742)
09-18-2002 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by gene90
09-18-2002 7:19 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

[non sequitur content deleted]

I'm making a plea to invoke the Kent Hovind clause on ad-hominems. And besides I think that getting one of us a 48-hour suspension will probably contribute to the quality of this forum far more than attempting to have an actual debate with you, an attempt that has failed with surprising consistency since you arrived.

If one can't express an honest opinion on here than it may as well be a theocracy. I keep asking you for credible, verifible, and unbiased evidence for your beliefs and all you give me back are fairy tales and an imaginary friend and you expect me to take you seriously. I don't want to "kiss Hank's ass", even though you keep asking me to. You're almost as bad as Wordswordsman.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-18-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by gene90, posted 09-18-2002 7:19 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by gene90, posted 09-19-2002 8:50 PM nos482 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 2114 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 47 of 55 (17803)
09-19-2002 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by nos482
09-18-2002 8:07 PM


[QUOTE][B]If one can't express an honest opinion on here than it may as well be a theocracy.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Opinions are part of this but I'm here to debate.

I try to give replies of substance but when I don't receive equally thorough replies I get frustrated because I'm wasting my time.

The terrible fact is that I'm not particularly interested in your *opinion*; or anyone elses'. I want to hear why you are right and why I am wrong. That's why I'm here, not for one-liners and snide comments. Yeah I said opinions are part of this, in that your opinion is your thesis for your argument (hopefully about a paragraph in length) consisting of valid logical structures.

[QUOTE][B]I keep asking you for credible, verifible, and unbiased evidence for your beliefs[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Sometime back around Day 1 I informed you that this is essentially theology we are debating, and not science, therefore scientific evidence is right out the window. The proper thing for you to do would be to either honorably excuse yourself because you don't want to fight a nonfalsifiable position or dig in for the duration and accept that you won't hear any scientific evidence.

However when you said that JS came from back from the dead to write a Civil War prophecy after the fact then surely you could have found some historical evidence for that. None. Bald assertion.

When you implied that the Church revised its history you offered no historical evidence. It was another bald assertion.

When you stated that Shakespeare translated the KJV you not only presented no evidence you got rebuffed by a fellow non-theist.

As I see it, you don't have much room to preach about evidence.

Also, why is it that you usually ignore more than half of messages and call it either "non sequitur" or "irrelevant crap deleted"?

Before you can properly blow of my material you have to have evidence that is 'non-sequitur' or 'irrelevant'.

[QUOTE][B]and all you give me back are fairy tales and an imaginary friend and you expect me to take you seriously.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

See, these are yet more bald assertions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nos482, posted 09-18-2002 8:07 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by nos482, posted 09-19-2002 9:00 PM gene90 has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 55 (17804)
09-19-2002 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by gene90
09-19-2002 8:50 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

The terrible fact is that I'm not particularly interested in your *opinion*; or anyone elses'. I want to hear why you are right and why I am wrong. That's why I'm here, not for one-liners and snide comments. Yeah I said opinions are part of this, in that your opinion is your thesis for your argument (hopefully about a paragraph in length) consisting of valid logical structures.

How can I talk of logic to someone who has an imaginary friend and worships an invisible sky father and can't provide one bit of credible, verifible, nor unbiased evidence to back up anything he says. Logic and word games are not proof in and of themselves.
Hey, that was a paragraph.

Sometime back around Day 1 I informed you that this is essentially theology we are debating, and not science, therefore scientific evidence is right out the window.

It doesn't have to be scientific, just credible.

However when you said that JS came from back from the dead to write a Civil War prophecy after the fact then surely you could have found some historical evidence for that. None. Bald assertion.

Here you are imagining things. I never said any such thing. You don't have any proof that he actually wrote any of it himself.

When you implied that the Church revised its history you offered no historical evidence. It was another bald assertion.

Please, it is a common tactic to make themselves look better.

When you stated that Shakespeare translated the KJV you not only presented no evidence you got rebuffed by a fellow non-theist.

I had said that he helped in its translation not that he translated the whole thing. This had mostly been suspressed.

See, these are yet more bald assertions.

Prove me wrong, show me your so-called "spirit witness"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by gene90, posted 09-19-2002 8:50 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by gene90, posted 09-19-2002 9:49 PM nos482 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 2114 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 49 of 55 (17809)
09-19-2002 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by nos482
09-19-2002 9:00 PM


[QUOTE][B]It doesn't have to be scientific, just credible.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

What about those prophecies? Prior to the war they were printed out on cards entitled "The Pearl of the Great Price" and used by missionaries throughout the US and England. Also they were recorded in the journals kept by those missionaries. Finally it can be found in the 1856 edition of Doctrine and Covenants and forward-- some copies of which are still in private hands, other copies of which are most likely to be found in the collections of secular libraries. Even if the Church did revise its history those sources could not have been altered. And if that isn't enough for you, check the "Journal History" of the Philadelphia Sunday Mercury for 5 May 1861 -- about the time of the onset of the war -- and find the following quote:

"We have in our possession a pamphlet, published at Liverpool, in 1851.... In view of our present troubles, this prediction seems to be in progress of fulfillment, whether Joe Smith was a humbug or not.... Have we not had a prophet among us?".

Pulled from the following (biased) site:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml#war

Now, where is your evidence that Smith did not write that, and where is your evidence of revision?

[QUOTE][B]You don't have any proof that he actually wrote any of it himself.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

You don't have proof that Hammurabi had anything to do with his Code, and that was thousands of years ago, yet it is taken at face value. We have first-hand accounts of historical witnesses to church history, and it was only in 1832.

By your logic we will just have to discard any literary works prior to about 1900 since we don't have "proof" that any of them were written by who they claimed to be. There goes cultural archeology and any attempts at the study of literature. That's going to be really bad here in the States because your reasoning makes the US Constitution invalid.

[QUOTE][B]Please, it is a common tactic to make themselves look better. [/QUOTE]

[/B]

I presume, then, you have no evidence? That the above is yet another useless, baseless claim, a mere assertion?

Worse, you're stereotyping. It is starting to look like you assume that all Christians are dishonest because it is a tenet of your religious perspective. If that's true then it puts you right down there with the worst Fundies.

[QUOTE][B]Prove me wrong, show me your so-called "spirit witness"? [/QUOTE]

[/B]

Show me a tau lepton. You know how to find the effects of the spirit you just won't actually go about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by nos482, posted 09-19-2002 9:00 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by nos482, posted 09-19-2002 10:06 PM gene90 has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 55 (17811)
09-19-2002 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by gene90
09-19-2002 9:49 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

What about those prophecies? Prior to the war they were printed out on cards entitled "The Pearl of the Great Price" and used by missionaries throughout the US and England. Also they were recorded in the journals kept by those missionaries. Finally it can be found in the 1856 edition of Doctrine and Covenants and forward-- some copies of which are still in private hands, other copies of which are most likely to be found in the collections of secular libraries. Even if the Church did revise its history those sources could not have been altered. And if that isn't enough for you, check the "Journal History" of the Philadelphia Sunday Mercury for 5 May 1861 -- about the time of the onset of the war -- and find the following quote:

"We have in our possession a pamphlet, published at Liverpool, in 1851.... In view of our present troubles, this prediction seems to be in progress of fulfillment, whether Joe Smith was a humbug or not.... Have we not had a prophet among us?".

Pulled from the following (biased) site:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml#war

Now, where is your evidence that Smith did not write that, and where is your evidence of revision?

They are not about to say "Yes, we have revised this, but we still want you to accept it as the truth..."

You don't have proof that Hammurabi had anything to do with his Code, and that was thousands of years ago, yet it is taken at face value. We have first-hand accounts of historical witnesses to church history, and it was only in 1832.

Apples and oranges again.

Show me a tau lepton. You know how to find the effects of the spirit you just won't actually go about it.

Easy, is there a super collider around where you live?

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/slac/hottopic/mperl95/tau.html

And how do I go about finding this "spirit"? What are it's physical properties? Or it's energy state? Oh, I almost forgot, all I have to do is believe that your "spirit" is real and it will be real. No other proof is needed. (Note: Sarcasm)

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-19-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by gene90, posted 09-19-2002 9:49 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by gene90, posted 09-19-2002 10:30 PM nos482 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 2114 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 51 of 55 (17812)
09-19-2002 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by nos482
09-19-2002 10:06 PM


[QUOTE][B]They are not about to say "Yes, we have revised this, but we still want you to accept it as the truth..."[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Sorry excuse. You know that LDS scriptures have been published more or less continuously since the 1830s. Surely you also must realize that there are surviving copies in non-church hands.

Don't throw out silly accusations that you don't have any basis for.

[QUOTE][B]Apples and oranges again.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Bald assertion (again).

Are you going to contribute anything of substance or are you just going to continue repeating yourself?

[QUOTE][B]Easy, is there a super collider around where you live?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I think being "shown" (your word) a tau lepton would be worth the plane ticken.

[QUOTE][B]And how do I go about finding this "spirit"?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I gave you instructions a long time ago. I'd repeat them if I thought you'd follow up, but of course, I know better.

[QUOTE][B]What are it's physical properties?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

We're not dealing with physical phenomena. Remember Day 1?

[QUOTE][B]Or it's energy state? Oh, I almost forgot, all I have to do is believe that your "spirit" is real and it will be real. No other proof is needed.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Useless snide remarks. In other words, drivel.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by nos482, posted 09-19-2002 10:06 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by nos482, posted 09-20-2002 7:58 AM gene90 has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 55 (17844)
09-20-2002 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by gene90
09-19-2002 10:30 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

Sorry excuse. You know that LDS scriptures have been published more or less continuously since the 1830s. Surely you also must realize that there are surviving copies in non-church hands.

Irrelevant.

Don't throw out silly accusations that you don't have any basis for.

And you're the one who believes in imaginary friends.

Are you going to contribute anything of substance or are you just going to continue repeating yourself?

That depends, are you going to give anything worth seriously replying to?

I gave you instructions a long time ago. I'd repeat them if I thought you'd follow up, but of course, I know better.

If you knew better you wouldn't believe in fairy tales as facts.

We're not dealing with physical phenomena. Remember Day 1?

Yes. You are dealing with the imaginary.

Useless snide remarks. In other words, drivel.

Or just a little too close to the truth. Pucker up, Hank is waiting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by gene90, posted 09-19-2002 10:30 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by gene90, posted 09-21-2002 8:46 PM nos482 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 2114 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 53 of 55 (17944)
09-21-2002 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by nos482
09-20-2002 7:58 AM


[QUOTE][B]Irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I would take your posts a little more seriously if you would use the form "Irrelevant BECAUSE...."

You are a troll, aren't you?

[Irrelevant crap deleted]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by nos482, posted 09-20-2002 7:58 AM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by nos482, posted 09-21-2002 10:10 PM gene90 has not yet responded
 Message 55 by John, posted 09-22-2002 1:05 AM gene90 has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 55 (17949)
09-21-2002 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by gene90
09-21-2002 8:46 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

[Irrelevant crap deleted]

[Nice try, but no cigar.]

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-21-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by gene90, posted 09-21-2002 8:46 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 55 (17957)
09-22-2002 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by gene90
09-21-2002 8:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I would take your posts a little more seriously if you would use the form "Irrelevant BECAUSE...."

quote:

Liber al vel Legis

2:27 ..... He shall fall down into the pit called Because, and there perish with the dogs of Reason.
28:Now a curse be upon Because and his kin!
29:May Because be accursed for ever!

and...

33:Enough of Because! Be he damned for a dog!


Maybe nos482 does not wish to perish with the dogs of reason?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by gene90, posted 09-21-2002 8:46 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019