Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan
I am not angry, it was a little late night grumpiness after seeing another post of your making your own bootstrapping arguments. Let me clarify that when you said it was this particu;ar post of your that set me off in some way, you are wrong. I do not care so much the actual topic you were discussing related to Mormonism per se, just that I read your post (and, BTW I only read maybe 10 posts per day total on the sight as I am usually just lightly scanning and periodically commenting and getting involved) and it seems that whenever you post you are quite fond of lifting yourself by yanking your boots up into the air. I do not care to play the part of the apologist, those days are a decade behind me.
In my studies on Mormonism I know enough to be able to call you on your BS. Once I did it is no surprise that you dug in your heels (like a good little contra-Mormonism apologist) and reiterated your position with more bravado. I could talk with you point by point on different topics of historicity, but it would take too long and I really just am not interested in it enough to debate you. You try to claim I have not specifically refuted your claim, but I really do not care. The way you are trying to set up this debate structure is to make me provide masses of data on small issues to make a case that you are not justified in the general claim you made. No, I am not going to play by your rules. If you want to support your claims with minutia and data for various issues and assertions to show that you are justified in making the conclusive statment you did, then so be it. I suspect you will have as much excitement to do that than I have to do the same that you would want me to do with presenting evidences.
You know, a couple thousdand years ago everyone KNEW that man and other creatures had not been on the earth prior to Adam. A thousand years ago the consensus KNEW that earth was flat. 500 years ago the consensus KNEW that the earth was the center of the universe. Today Seattle Ute KNOWS all sorts of things. Well, I don't know a whole lot, but I do KNOW from years of my own study that Seattle Ute cannot make the blanket claim he did that I first commented on. Your absolutist comments are for the most part laughable. but the more you may choose to argue against me I suspect you will make more comments to the effect that you really really really were correct with a cherry on top.
|
It's meaningless to consider what people thought they knew over five-hundred years ago (except arguably for the Greek Isles and othere Greek-influenced parts in ancient times) because until the seventeenth century there was no such thing as a scientific ethos. The world was ruled by superstition and tradition, and the idea of an examined world or empiricism was unheard of much less even foreign.
Seizing on the (scientific ethos) that nothing can be known for sure and there are always gaps in our understanding to defend the posibility of Book of Mormon historicity is the same thing we hear from Creationists in response to science. Such conclusory assertion and sheer speculation isn't a genuine and critical search for truth.