Let's hear it for the pilot.

Gemli, “Let's hear it for the pilot.”

The passengers can all be thankful for the pilot’s training, experience and education which saved the day. It’s a good thing the pilot wasn’t busy praying because I guarantee that god wasn’t going to land that plane.

I wonder why that “woman” was so hysterical? Chances are very good she was LDS. Aren’t LDS less fearful of death because they have a sure knowledge of the afterlife? When the rubber hit the road, hysterical woman obviously didn’t take much comfort in the LDS teachings.

CS:"It’s a good thing the pilot wasn’t busy praying because I guarantee that god wasn’t going to land that plane."

And CS imagines that the pilot wasn't praying because CS imagines that he wouldn't have been.

CS:"I wonder why that “woman” was so hysterical?"

Is CS suggesting that she somehow wasn't a real woman?

CS:"When the rubber hit the road, hysterical woman obviously didn’t take much comfort in the LDS teachings."

Good grief, CS. The sheer strain that you're putting yourself through is painful to watch.

I think it wise for me not to comment on Chapy linking hysteria with woman.

"...It’s a good thing the pilot wasn’t busy praying because..."

Maybe you gave up on 'rubbing your tummy while patting your head' as a kid, but I assure you: some people really can do two things at once.

With practice, maybe Chapstick could too. For example, he could try walking and chewing gum.

It’s a good thing the pilot wasn’t busy praying because I guarantee that god wasn’t going to land that plane.

For someone who is so adamant about physical evidence, I'm curious how you could possibly back up that spurious claim.

Jacob Ames: gemli never ever backs up any of his claims with evidences. If gemli had ever once read Aristotle on the four different kinds of causation, he might be able to see how God can and does meddle in human affairs without actually flying airplanes or navigating ships or building buildings or causing the blind to see, and so forth.

How would one provide evidence for the nonexistence of anything? Of course it's impossible to do so. Dr. Midgley must know that such a claim must be backed up by evidence that is commensurate with the claim. A claim that a god can and does meddle in human affairs requires a great deal of evidence, both to verify that such a divine being exists, and that the vagaries of human desire and experience cannot be explained by natural means.

Every claim made in history (to take a discipline at random) must be verified. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more proof is required if the claim is to be taken seriously. Given recent political events, it's clear that people in large numbers will believe in the most abject nonsense imaginable, to the point of crawling up the U.S. Capitol building, if they're in the thrall of a charismatic charlatan.

I wonder why that “woman” was so hysterical? Chances are very good she was LDS. Aren’t LDS less fearful of death because they have a sure knowledge of the afterlife? When the rubber hit the road, hysterical woman obviously didn’t take much comfort in the LDS teachings.

Jeering at someone's fear is just so mature; so praiseworthy; so deserving of all emulation.

Especially coming from someone who doesn't dare to do his online heckling without first carefully hiding his identity. What an outstanding example of moral courage!

The interesting thing is, I jumped (I know wrongly so) to the opposite conclusion. Considering that:
1) In the army I found the non-believers to be the one that struggled with the heat of combat. The believers were always pretty calm.
2) 50% of St George residents are not Latter-day Saints (Dixie State U [soon to have a name change]) students and a lot of move ins.
3) Utahn's rarely fly to St George. It is an easy drive if you have the time. So maybe the woman was an out of state passenger coming to vacate?

I'm sure the possibilities are endless. But bigots and demagogues, like the brave dipstick, always rely upon stereotypes.

Yes, indeed.

I'm glad to see you agree with President Nelson about something. It vastly increases your chances of getting something right, for a change.

Haha, right???

Dear dogmatic gemli: Please explain why it makes any real difference to a kind of mere slightly sentient large cockroach as you have been insisting that you are certain that this is all there is to human beings?

We are not sentient cockroaches, one recent former president notwithstanding. We are slightly more sentient apes, made of the same stuff and behaving in similar ways as the hairier variety. More precise vocal capabilities (due more than likely to our acquiring the foxp2 gene) advantaged the evolution of a larger brain capable of communicating with more precision, as well as allowing stories to be told that were not tied to physical reality.

The fact that there is not a scrap of physical evidence for the stories of actual angels, gods and other "beings," despite the widespread and varied claims of such evidence, indicates that such beings exist only in these stories. The fact that people have imagined a huge variety of supernatural beings and afterlives is not evidence of their existence, but of a common pattern of wishful thinking designed to assuage our fear of death.

Dying is not something we look forward to, but death is a piece of cake. There's literally no way to get it wrong. So theists should relax and not waste time doing the recitations and gyrations designed to get them to the afterlife.

The fact that there is not a scrap of physical evidence for the stories of actual angels, gods and other "beings,"

What would actually count as physical evidence to you? The plates?
Would you actually give Joseph Smith a single consideration if you handled the gold plates yourself and someone wearing a shiny SCIENCE! badge ran a mystery test and said, "Yep this gold dates from roughly 600 BC?" Or would you find some other way to write him off as a charlatan? Whatever, he got lucky!

Not a single thing would actually convince you, gemli. You said yourself on this forum that if you DID see a divine manifestation, you'd discount it as hallucinatory or that you had gone crazy.

Have you every actually tried praying? Have you ever offered a sincere, searching prayer in your life? Not a "strike me down if you're real" ploy. Like, talked for real to Him, on the chance He might be real?

There's a reason a lot of us are here, saying the things we say. And it's not because we just took someone else's word for it.

No sincere believer in any of the scores of discrepant theological claims thinks that their belief is untrue. They can persist in their beliefs because there is no evidence that would certify any of them. Somehow, lack of evidence makes belief far more persistent. Such belief requires commitment, and must be defended, which make people believe all the more fervently.

Yes, neither golden plates nor actual evidence of past civilizations as purportedly described in them ever existed. Neither did Adam and Eve, or a garden, or a snake. There are endless such claims that have nothing to do with actual beings or events, and everything to do with human psychology.

gemli:"Yes, neither golden plates nor actual evidence of past civilizations as purportedly described in them ever existed."

Considerable evidence indicates otherwise. You refuse even to look at it, though, which renders your opinion on the matter absolutely worthless.

No, there is not considerable credible evidence. If there were, both religious and non-religious people would support their existence.

No, there is not considerable credible evidence. If there were, both religious and non-religious people would support their existence.

Rubbish. There would always be at least two groups of people who would not.

1. Those who don't know anything about it. This is by far the largest group in relation to just about any subject. People learn about what interests them, and a great many people don't care about past events, religious artefacts, or both.
2. Those who refuse to know anything about it. This is a much smaller group, consisting of the stubbornly ignorant. I'm sure you know at least one person just like that. Someone who made up his mind at a very early age that there just ain't no such thing, not nohow, neither. Someone who is convinced that his 11-year-old self couldn't possibly be wrong, so that anything that might challenge his pre-adolescent prejudices couldn't possibly be right; and therefore, any evidence that suggests that there is anything mistaken or inadequate about those prejudices must be excluded, by any dodge, however desperate.

But the fact is that there is indeed considerable evidence regarding the existence of the Plates, and all of it is affirmative. You'll never see it, because you're too terrified of it. But others can.

I also happen to know one person who refuses to know a thing about the actual beliefs and history of Jewish, Christian and Islamic faith. And who has many, many dozens of times boasted that he does not care to know a thing about the faith of Latter-day Saints. And who constantly demonstrates that he has tried hard to know as little as possible about our faith. Please notice how carefully I avoided mentioning gemli, who insists that there cannot be evidence, since history is bunk.

Fred, IMO, what we've learned about those ancient civilizations over the years is evidence that the Book of Mormon has always been correct with regard to its portrayal of large complex civilizations existing on this continent in the past. A lot of folks in the early days thought the BoM was quite imaginative on that point--laughable really. But now we can see that it has been vindicated on that particular claim.

With regard to your second paragraph--I like to imagine archaeologists in the distant future discovering evidence of a very large civilization within the boundaries of the U.S.--and then asking myself: what would they find in the intermountain west that would compel them to believe that an entirely different people and culture existed there as compared to the surrounding areas?

FK:From the Book of Mormon we get other, supposedly large civilizations, existing in a supposedly specific area for thousands of years. Yet, not one scrap of physical evidence has been found, even though these civilizations were living in the same area."

John Clark's comment is directly relevant to that point.

It's odd that you're unfamiliar with it, and that you don't care to know about it.

John Clark's comment is directly relevant to that point.

It's odd that you're unfamiliar with it, and that you don't care to know about it.

See my comment, "Those who refuse to know anything about it," above.

gemli actually does seem to be contagious.

Now, I am wondering if I should work with CSTE to get a case definition for gemili-itis and add it to mandatory reporting statute?

FK:"Please point to anything Dr. Clark has published in an archeological journal where he makes the case for zero physical evidence."

But, poor fellow, that's precisely the point of his comment!

Why do you insist on bloviating about a subject on which you refuse to inform yourself? Is gemli contagious?

FK:"Do you truly believe that a "comment" by someone is enough to explain away the total lack of evidence for a civilization, numbering in the millions? Perhaps in your world."

I'm playing with you, FK. I'm astonished at your gemli-like insistence on commenting unfavorably on the beliefs of other people without taking much if any effort to understand those beliefs.

Professor Clark's comment doesn't "explain away the total lack of evidence." It recasts the issue in a way that more or less dissolves it.

If I thought that you were seriously interested in understanding our position, I would help you out. But I don't.

I am confident that a bald assertion by someone like Fred Kratz, who most likely has exactly no training in any academic discipline relevant to the comments he makes, need not be taken seriously.

I take physical evidence seriously when someone makes a bald assertion.

And what "bald assertion" is that?

Happy reading, then!

Fred Kratz seems to actually want Professor Peterson to "Please point to anything Dr. Clark has published in an archeological journal where he makes the case for zero physical evidence." The fact is that John Clark believes that there a great deal of "physical evidence" supporting the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, but zero evidence in the Great Lakes area. I just happen to own a book entitled Remembrance and Return, in which on pages 213-256, John Clark sets out evidence that Fred Kratz should and even could read if he really wants to know something about the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.

Kratz, are you familiar with Winston Churchill's definition of a fanatic?

The definition undoubtedly means a great deal more to someone consistently willing to label others.

He deflected.

Churchill defined a fanatic as someone who "can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

Tell us the shoe doesn't fit, Kratz.

I remind you that Sic et Non is not a public message board, Kratz. Sic et Non is a blog. It has a POV, because the owner has a POV. Given that the POV here so enrages you, I'm sure it would be better for your blood pressure to go and find a forum that is more congenial to your narrow, censorious views.

Did you manage to write that with a straight face?

FK:"Has he published anything in an archeological journal regarding this great deal of physical evidence for millions of Jaredites or Lehites?"

He's published a great deal in archaeological journals, and has done some LDS-oriented publishing. I hope you'll read it someday.

Fred Kratz is stuck in repeat. It might be getting close for him to go to the Sin Bin for a while so he can figure out if he really needs to post comments on sic et non.

If students refuse to read the assigned texts, should they be allowed to commandeer class time for questions that others have already answered for themselves?

Is that what you did with students who asked uncomfortable questions?

If you really believe your (completely rhetorical) questions are "uncomfortable," then I need to introduce you to two gentlemen who may be able to help: Dr Dunning and Dr Kruger.