Not so easy?

[Daniel Peterson]

"noel00," hissed Peterson, "the stories of the Bible seem at least as ludicrous to those disposed to disbelieve them.  Floating axe heads?  Seas that part so that thousands of people can cross on dry land (rather than sea-bottom muck)?  Corpses coming back to life?  Water changing into wine?  The sun standing still?  Fish and loaves of bread magically multiplying?  People walking on water?  Chariots going up into the sky?  Talking snakes?  Talking donkeys?"

"And you believe this 'rubbish,'" Peterson snarled.  "Those who live in glass houses should perhaps think twice before hurling petrified cow pies."

It's nice to see that you can appreciate when someone else beliefs are rubbish..it's just too bad you can't fully comprehend how other see you and your beliefs.

Whoosh. Right over her head.

[Mighty Curelom]

I know you are, but what am I?

[Tanyan]

Is this conversation actualy going anywhere ?.

[Daniel Peterson]

Is this conversation actualy going anywhere ?.

In MC's view, life isn't going anywhere. So who cares about this conversation?

[Tanyan]

Thanks Bro Peterson, I was just curious.

[Bill Hamblin]

I'd like to thank you all for completely derailing this thread with endless driveling rubbish.

It was almost worth it, however, to learn that "Atheism is not a belief system. People do not get indoctrinated at a young age into atheism." A truly "MasterCard Moment."

I'm not going to read the nonsense here anymore; I'm starting to get intellectual vertigo in this vortex of irrelevancies. Life is short and I'd rather watch Simpson reruns, thanks just the same.

I do note that no one could actually meet any of my challenges.

[religiously free]

Bill H:

[Daniel Peterson]

It is amazing the crazy things people think and  believe!

If you want to post your intellectual autobiography, Informationally Free, please open a separate thread for it. That's a great opening line, though.

[Tanyan]

Bro Peterson, I second the motion !!! .

[Dunamis]

I'm afraid that this thread had nowhere to go since no one was willing to take the initial challenge.

Religiously Free, every thread that you have entered seems to turn into a debate about you. We all know what you think and believe. We don't need to see it in multiple threads. When a critical mass of your posts contains little but "no it's not" your posts become noise. My ears are beginning to hurt. Unfortunately, we cannnot control the number of posts each poster can do but if you do not begin to produce substance you are going to be put on the queue. Substance means that you give some evidence for your opinions. You have already filled multiple threads with meaningless declarations. Limit that to three posts a day or enter into a substantive debate or you will be put on the queue.

[John Russell]

RF said:

And btw..while many believers may look upon early indoctrination as a good thing. I consider it child abuse... to fill a defenseless young person's head with nonsense when they are unable to defend themselves. If a religion is so true it shouldn't need to do that. An adult if presented with truth will accept. Religious organizations know they need to get people when they are young, because if they wait until the person is old enough to think critically most will reject the religion.

So, what is your stand on education for children? Is it abusive? If children are raised in homes or educated in schools where God is forcefully omitted, is this not indoctrination by omission? And should we REALLY be teaching our children about historical and scientific "facts" that are prone to change in a few years or decades, leaving our children with a flawed understanding of true history or science. After all, if [science, history, economics, whatever else] is so true, it shouldn't be necessary to fill a defenseless young person's head with nonsense. All people accept truth in the context of their own pre-conceived notions and their personal background. To think that there is some absolute standard of objective education that then forms a fertile soil for recognizing and accepting all truth seems a bit nonsensical to me. But then, I'm indoctrinated.

[YH8]

Bill H:

[Ray Agostini]

I haven't been following RF for a while (I need time to readjust to reality after reading her comments, my head just goes into a spin), but I caught this:

And btw..while many believers may look upon early indoctrination as a good thing. I consider it child abuse... to fill a defenseless young person's head with nonsense when they are unable to defend themselves.

Well what are we supposed to do, fill it with nothing? By implication every religion is abusive, because in countries where Buddhism is taught Buddhists become abusive, and where Catholicism is taught, Catholicism becomes abusive. And in China or Russia where atheism exists atheism would be abusive, since it teaches against the notion of any God. Every system teaches its children something. (Which reminds me, if you've read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer you'll see just how much of a religion atheism really is. Tells me you haven't read much of Marx.)

So what will/did you tell your child when she asked you questions? That there is no God, that such things are like Santa Claus are just myths? (Speaking of which, telling a child that Santa exists must also be abusive.)

Okay, that was my diversion into RF's fantasy world for the day, now back to reality. Some of your comments are just amazing. Is this the kind of razor-sharp thinking atheism produces?

[Daniel Peterson]

For those that think it should be easy to find conclusive proof of the BOM through archaeological evidence, I offer the following challenge.

All that survives in Mesoamerica from pre-400 AD is archaeological artifacts, and some Maya royal inscriptions and reliefs.  Assume, for the sake of Argument, that Diocletian's persecutions of Christianity were successful, Constantine never converted, and Christianity disappeared around 300 AD.  Using solely archaeological artifacts and imperial Roman inscriptions, reconstruct the history of Christianity.  What, precisely, could we prove about Christianity using solely archaeological artifacts and Roman royal inscriptions?  To give you a little help, you can turn to Graydon F. Snyder, Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine, 2nd ed.(Mercer UP, 2003), which includes all major archaeological data.

I'd like to give the skeptical fraternity here one last chance actually to engage Professor Hamblin's challenge. I do so with little real optimism, but eager to be surprised.

[Dunamis]

We have pinned the question to the top of the page so that the exercise is accessible.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=5675

[cinepro]

I do note that no one could actually meet any of my challenges.

I'd like to give the skeptical fraternity here one last chance actually to engage Professor Hamblin's challenge. I do so with little real optimism, but eager to be surprised.

I have done some research, and talked with some scholars, so I think it may be possible to meet the challenge to show that there existed a group of early Christians from the archaeological artifacts and Roman royal inscriptions.

But before I continue, I'd like to clarify a few things.

First, who should we get to "judge" the challenge? Who will decide if the challenge has been met?

Second, I'd also like to clarify what we can conclude if the challenge is accomplished, as well as if it can't be accomplished?

Since Bill isn't here anymore, perhaps Dr. Peterson can fill in the following blanks:

If Bill's challenge is met, and we can show the existence of a group of Christians from 33-300AD based on the limited evidence of archaeological artifacts and imperial Roman inscriptions , then ________________

or

If Bill's challenge can't be met, and scholars are unable to show the existence of Christians from 33-300AD based on the limited evidence of archaeological artifacts and imperial Roman inscriptions, then _______________

Dr. Peterson, can you also state the parralels between the early Christians, and the people in the Book of Mormon upon which this challenge is based?

Something along the lines of..."This comparison of the early Christians to the Book of Mormon peoples is a valid one, becuase the early Christians were [this], and the Book of Mormon peoples were also [this]." Or something like that.

Is it reasonable to to clarify these issues before moving on?

[Bill Hamblin]

Note the challenge is:

What, precisely, could we prove about Christianity using solely archaeological artifacts and Roman royal inscriptions?

Note, too, that you can only use pre-Constantine data.

If you can say something meaning, it doesn't prove much, since there are many religions which can be identified from archaeology.

On the other hand, if you cannot say anything meaningful, it would demonstrate that a religion with millions of followers can be essentially unidentifiable from archaeological evdience alone.

The question is not if archaeology SOMETIMES permits us to say meaningful things about a religion. It does. The question is, does archaeology SOMETIMES fail to discover anything meaningful about a religion. And, again, it does.

Note finally, that the comparison is not between Mediterrean Christians and Nephite Christians, but between methodogical problems surrounding the limitations of identifying religions base on archaeological evidence alone.

You may want to move this to Dunamis' "pinned" area, so we don't get the usual distractions.

[Dan Vogel]

Dunamis,

I intend on responding to Mr. Hamblin’s challenge. But Mr. Confidential has raise some issues about my credibility and methodology that need addressing. My responses are substantive and deal with some important points in methodology. I appeal to your patience in this matter. Meanwhile, I will note that Mr. Hamblin did not respond to the methodological issues raised in my exchange with brugsch.

Moderator: Go ahead, Mr. Vogel. It has been our experience that public figures (those who have published and/or teach/lecture) are more vulnerable to what I will call cheap shots for lack of a better term. Our intent is to give these contributors some protection because we consider the dialogue that they can generate to be of great interest to others. However, we do need offending posts to be reported.

[Dan Vogel]

Mr. Informant:

For those reading along, the lesson for today is how a disingenuous apologist tries to block genuine discussion by employing an ad hominem argument in the form of poisoning the well.

My goal here is not to convince Mr. Confidential. Obviously, someone who is willing to use such tactics is not worthy of refutation. My purpose is to educate those who might have the misfortune of being confronted by Mr. Confidential or any of his cohorts.

Here are the definitions of two fallacies that Mr. Confidential and his associates (particularly Juliann) have employed against me and others on this board.

Abusive Ad Hominem.

[Ray Agostini]

Dan,

There are quite a few people here taking a great interest in what you have to say. I am one of them, even though I don't always get to the threads you are on all the time.

Just a note. You commented in reply to CI:

I have cited the endorsements of two psychotherapists and one psychotherapist (Nov 3 2004, 05:20 PM). I repeat:

[wenglund]

Dan Vogel: For those reading along, the lesson for today is how a disingenuous apologist tries to block genuine discussion by employing an ad hominem argument in the form of poisoning the well.

Did anyone else catch the irony of this patronizing declaration?

Dan Vogel: Here is a simple rule for identifying a logical fallacy: whatever does not address the argument you have offered directly is a fallacy. No matter what it is or who says it. Period! The various fallacies are only the various ways in which addressing arguments are avoided. The only thing that matters is the soundness or validity of arguments. Period!

I only hope readers of this post will see through the smokescreen and give the arguments in my book a chance.

Did anyone else catch the rich irony here as well?

There were other examples that could be quoted from Vogel's verbose post, but this should suffice in determining whether the would-be teacher of logic is in need of instruction. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel Peterson]

Now the claim has been made that FAIR and FARMS are apologetic organizations, and that those who are associated with them are apologists, but I think it only

[Bill Hamblin]

I intend on responding to Mr. Hamblin

[Daniel Peterson]

I hope that somebody will take up Professor Hamblin's challenge. cinepro and Dan Vogel have, I think, said that they would. I trust they've noticed that a special thread has been created ("pinned") for it, up above at the top of the first page of the "LDS Dialogue and Discussion" area.

[Confidential Informant]

Dear Dan,

Thanks for the response, such as it was. In the interest of mainting the subjecet matter of this thread, I will respond in the "Why You Hatin'" thread, which seems more appropriate to the topic.

You'll find it here:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=5620&st=90

C.I.