120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Juma]

I didn't say it was "soecifically" about the afterlife.

I find it funny to see atheists quibbling about the fine distinction between supernatural beings and the realm in which they dwell. Tell you what, how about you explain to me how Hitchens' atheism would remain intact if he found his post-mortem self in a place where he was duly "surprised".

You still havent realized that atheism is neither pro or against the existence of an afterlife? Atheism is only about the existence of gods.

And Hitchens reaction on being shown evidens of an afterlife (or of the existens of a god) woukd probably be: wow, now I know this to be so!

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I didn't say it was "soecifically" about the afterlife.

I find it funny to see atheists quibbling about the fine distinction between supernatural beings and the realm in which they dwell.

Let's forget about the fact that you said he was being asked about the afterlife when the question was actually about the existence of a god. While correctly citing the question asked would have established the context better, it's a minor detail. The bigger point here is that you used the exchange as proof or at the very least as evidence that Hitchens' attitude towards belief had "softened" towards the end of his life. Watching the video, however, it's obvious to any but the most unobservant that this was not the case, that Hitchens was not seriously suggesting any real possibility he would "meet his maker" after death.

Tell you what, how about you explain to me how Hitchens' atheism would remain intact if he found his post-mortem self in a place where he was duly "surprised".

Depends on what the "surprise" was. If it was the "surprise" you originally claimed, i.e. some sort of afterlife, it doesn't necessarily follow that any kind of god was involved, merely that there was some (undefined) continuation of life after physical death. If it was some sort of "meeting your maker" situation, that would negate his atheism, no doubt. But then there would be the question of which of the many thousands of deities worshipped by humans over the millenia it was. Or maybe it wouldn't be any of those at all, but some divine being nobody ever thought of. One thing I'm almost certain of, however: it wouldn't be the contradictory, tri-omni deity as described in the torah, bible
and koran, whose attributes negate each other, and their owner, out of any possibility of existence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I didn't say it was "soecifically" about the afterlife.

I find it funny to see atheists quibbling about the fine distinction between supernatural beings and the realm in which they dwell. Tell you what, how about you explain to me how Hitchens' atheism would remain intact if he found his post-mortem self in a place where he was duly "surprised".

Well, if it's just a condition, without anyone apparently running the show, he could certainly remain an atheist. Say if he finds himself in a free-for-all of souls fighting for reincarnation. No one in charge.

No gods.


He could finally be faced with (surprised by) evidence for an afterlife, but not for a god. So his atheism is untouched.


Or he could be a ghost, maybe? a collection of memories recorded on a previously undetected medium, persisting as they slowly fade over the next 400 years, haunting the place of his death but that death was insufficiently traumatic to give him the means to contact the living he observes.... But still, no sign of gods, no bright light, no judge, no pearly gates, no reason to impact his atheism.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's a provable objective scientific fact (not just an "opinion") that intelligence is more important than hair color.

"Intelligence is more important than hair color" is true. Anyone who denies this is wrong. You don't deny it, and you don't know anyone who denies it. You can't quote anyone who denies it.

I deny it.

The smartest polar bear in the world would starve to death if his hair was black.

He would also starve to death without his intelligence. Perhaps even sooner than if his hair was black. He could still catch fish even though having black hair, but not without his intelligence.

Intelligence is more important to me than hair color, and arguably more important to most, if not all humans. But it is not a universal truth that intelligence is more important than hair color.

Yes, it's a "universal truth" in the same sense that light travels faster than sound and other recognized facts.

In terms of survival value (if that's taken as some kind of given "highest good" or other agreed value), intelligence has vastly greater significance for this than hair color, which matters only in extremely rare conditions.

So if "survival" is supposed to be important, it's obvious that intelligence matters far more than hair color in virtually every conceivable situation. Even for that bear the high level of intelligence probably is more important for survival than its hair color.

It is an opinion shared by human beings who happen to have taken an evolutionary strategy that depended on intelligence.

No, many or most other beings also depended on intelligence and evolved higher as a result of acquiring increased intelligence. Their evolution perhaps has not reached the point where they have the concept of intelligence, or opinions about it, but intelligence has been important for them and is more important for them than hair color or most other traits.

Imagine that! A species that depends on intelligence to survive values intelligence above hair color.

No, many other species also depend on intelligence to survive. Just because they don't think the thought "intelligence" vs. "hair color" does not change the fact that intelligence for them is of far greater importance than hair color. That they don't think about it doesn't mean it isn't important for them. They don't think about their heartbeat or about oxygen in the bloodstream, but these are very important for them.

They are heavily dependent on their intelligence even though this is less advanced than that of humans.

Who would have thunk it?

You obviously have not thunk this through. Why are you pretending that only humans have any intelligence? Why don't you recognize that polar bears are dependent on their intelligence? and other animals which would perish without it?

Even if every human on the planet agrees that one thing is more valuable than another thing that opinion is not a universal truth.

In some cases it is a universal truth. E.g., the opinion that light travels faster than sound is a universal truth. The "opinion" that intelligence is more important than hair color is just as true as the "opinion" that light travels faster than sound.

It is still merely an opinion.

That light travels faster than sound is also an opinion. Calling it "merely an opinion" does not make it any less true. It can be proved that intelligence is more important than hair color.

Cheetahs have several assets, including their hair coloring and speed.

Their intelligence is at least as important as these.

They are nowhere near as intelligent as human beings but their speed and hair coloring are much more critical to their survival than their ability to parse a sentence.

But they must use their intelligence. All the predatory animals use intelligence more than speed and other assets. Often their prey is as fast as they are, or almost as fast, and only with their intelligence can they plan a successful attack. Speaking languages is an advanced form of intelligence, but lower levels of intelligence are also necessary.

The predatory animals are successful more due to their higher I.Q. over the prey animals than due to their faster speed or other advantages.

If there's a rare case where a predatory animal relies more on color or speed, that is the exception. Their superior intelligence over the prey animal is almost always more important.

If scientists could discover a way to make animals more intelligent, especially humans, it would be appropriate to do it. E.g., something which would affect the body chemistry or the genetic traits or whatever. Creating an artificial increase in intelligence would be desirable, as long there would be no side effects. But this cannot be said about changing hair color, except in some very limited situation. Of course it could be said about changing animals in certain ways, for a specific limited purpose, but increased intelligence would be high on the list of desirable changes which would have value for general purposes.

Somewhere relatively near the area where "sun" is designated is a tiny bluish speck. On a portion of the surface of that speck is a species of life that considers intelligence more important than hair color. Some other species of life on that speck depend more on hair color than intelligence for their survival.

No, probably no species does. But let's say there are some species which depend on something like color or smallness or muscle power or speed or a particular chemical etc. more than on intelligence.

Even so, intelligence generally is more important than any color or size or muscle contraction or speed or chemical. A change of color or other minor change would have extremely limited value, for only some rare peculiar cases, whereas an increase in intelligence is a universal benefit to virtually any species or any creature of any kind.

Step back a bit and that galaxy quickly gets lost in the billions upon billions of galaxies that make up the universe.

2 + 2 = 4 everywhere in both of those images. Intelligence > Hair Color is an opinion shared by one species that you'd be hard pressed to locate somewhere in one of those images.

But also the opinion that the earth is round is an opinion shared by one species that you'd be hard pressed to locate somewhere in one of those images.

So, the round earth is not a fact? because it's difficult to locate a creature which thinks this? it's just an opinion? For those who have a contrary opinion, the earth is NOT round? If so, then we shouldn't teach this in schools, because it's not true for those kids whose opinion is that the earth is flat (or a cube, or pyramid, etc.).

Some things in life are "more important" -- and it's not just an "opinion" but a fact, which can be proved just as it can be proved that light travels faster than sound.

It may be complicated or difficult to prove what is "important" and what is not, in many cases, but this doesn't make it any less true. Or it may be controversial, or even offensive, but neither does that make it less true.

But in some cases it's easy to prove what's more "important" -- e.g., that pleasure is preferable to pain, that good health is preferable to illness, that rescuing a panda bear from a burning building is more important than rescuing the goldfish, or that intelligence is more important than hair color (unless it's bright shiny turquoise with flashy sparkles, which takes priority over anything else in the universe).

 

[bilby]

I deny it.

The smartest polar bear in the world would starve to death if his hair was black.

He would also starve to death without his intelligence. Perhaps even sooner than if his hair was black. He could still catch fish even though having black hair, but not without his intelligence.

Intelligence is more important to me than hair color, and arguably more important to most, if not all humans. But it is not a universal truth that intelligence is more important than hair color.

Yes, it's a "universal truth" in the same sense that light travels faster than sound and other recognized facts.

In terms of survival value (if that's taken as some kind of given "highest good" or other agreed value), intelligence has vastly greater significance for this than hair color, which matters only in extremely rare conditions.

So if "survival" is supposed to be important, it's obvious that intelligence matters far more than hair color in virtually every conceivable situation. Even for that bear the high level of intelligence probably is more important for survival than its hair color.

It is an opinion shared by human beings who happen to have taken an evolutionary strategy that depended on intelligence.

No, many or most other beings also depended on intelligence and evolved higher as a result of acquiring increased intelligence. Their evolution perhaps has not reached the point where they have the concept of intelligence, or opinions about it, but intelligence has been important for them and is more important for them than hair color or most other traits.

Imagine that! A species that depends on intelligence to survive values intelligence above hair color.

No, many other species also depend on intelligence to survive. Just because they don't think the thought "intelligence" vs. "hair color" does not change the fact that intelligence for them is of far greater importance than hair color. That they don't think about it doesn't mean it isn't important for them. They don't think about their heartbeat or about oxygen in the bloodstream, but these are very important for them.

They are heavily dependent on their intelligence even though this is less advanced than that of humans.

Who would have thunk it?

You obviously have not thunk this through. Why are you pretending that only humans have any intelligence? Why don't you recognize that polar bears are dependent on their intelligence? and other animals which would perish without it?

Even if every human on the planet agrees that one thing is more valuable than another thing that opinion is not a universal truth.

In some cases it is a universal truth. E.g., the opinion that light travels faster than sound is a universal truth. The "opinion" that intelligence is more important than hair color is just as true as the "opinion" that light travels faster than sound.

It is still merely an opinion.

That light travels faster than sound is also an opinion. Calling it "merely an opinion" does not make it any less true. It can be proved that intelligence is more important than hair color.

Cheetahs have several assets, including their hair coloring and speed.

Their intelligence is at least as important as these.

They are nowhere near as intelligent as human beings but their speed and hair coloring are much more critical to their survival than their ability to parse a sentence.

But they must use their intelligence. All the predatory animals use intelligence more than speed and other assets. Often their prey is as fast as they are, or almost as fast, and only with their intelligence can they plan a successful attack. Speaking languages is an advanced form of intelligence, but lower levels of intelligence are also necessary.

The predatory animals are successful more due to their higher I.Q. over the prey animals than due to their faster speed or other advantages.

If there's a rare case where a predatory animal relies more on color or speed, that is the exception. Their superior intelligence over the prey animal is almost always more important.

If scientists could discover a way to make animals more intelligent, especially humans, it would be appropriate to do it. E.g., something which would affect the body chemistry or the genetic traits or whatever. Creating an artificial increase in intelligence would be desirable, as long there would be no side effects. But this cannot be said about changing hair color, except in some very limited situation. Of course it could be said about changing animals in certain ways, for a specific limited purpose, but increased intelligence would be high on the list of desirable changes which would have value for general purposes.

Somewhere relatively near the area where "sun" is designated is a tiny bluish speck. On a portion of the surface of that speck is a species of life that considers intelligence more important than hair color. Some other species of life on that speck depend more on hair color than intelligence for their survival.

No, probably no species does. But let's say there are some species which depend on something like color or smallness or muscle power or speed or a particular chemical etc. more than on intelligence.

Even so, intelligence generally is more important than any color or size or muscle contraction or speed or chemical. A change of color or other minor change would have extremely limited value, for only some rare peculiar cases, whereas an increase in intelligence is a universal benefit to virtually any species or any creature of any kind.

Step back a bit and that galaxy quickly gets lost in the billions upon billions of galaxies that make up the universe.

2 + 2 = 4 everywhere in both of those images. Intelligence > Hair Color is an opinion shared by one species that you'd be hard pressed to locate somewhere in one of those images.

But also the opinion that the earth is round is an opinion shared by one species that you'd be hard pressed to locate somewhere in one of those images.

So, the round earth is not a fact? because it's difficult to locate a creature which thinks this? it's just an opinion? For those who have a contrary opinion, the earth is NOT round? If so, then we shouldn't teach this in schools, because it's not true for those kids whose opinion is that the earth is flat (or a cube, or pyramid, etc.).

Some things in life are "more important" -- and it's not just an "opinion" but a fact, which can be proved just as it can be proved that light travels faster than sound.

It may be complicated or difficult to prove what is "important" and what is not, in many cases, but this doesn't make it any less true. Or it may be controversial, or even offensive, but neither does that make it less true.

But in some cases it's easy to prove what's more "important" -- e.g., that pleasure is preferable to pain, that good health is preferable to illness, that rescuing a panda bear from a burning building is more important than rescuing the goldfish, or that intelligence is more important than hair color (unless it's bright shiny turquoise with flashy sparkles, which takes priority over anything else in the universe).

Wow, that's a LOT of words to be completely wrong with.

Perhaps if you spent more time thinking, and less time writing, you would not be in the hypocritical position of arguing for the primacy of intelligence whilst displaying a disinclination to excercise any.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's a provable objective scientific fact (not just an "opinion") that intelligence is more important than hair color.

Except, of course, that science doesn't really do 'proof.'
Science does 'best explanation so far that matches the evidence we've acquired so far.'

Not proof.

But, hey, you might still be right, even with a premise that so horribly mis-states science basics... Oh, but wait. No, you're not.

 

[Atheos]

I also find it hilarious that in this wall of text he eventually says "Even so, intelligence generally is more important than any color or size or muscle contraction or speed or chemical." (emphasis mine).

Sort of like saying 2 + 2 = 4 more often than not.

 

[Atheos]

Lumpenproletariat is also now arguing that it's an opinion that light travels faster than sound in the same sense that it's an opinion that intelligence is more important than hair color. That it's only an opinion that the world is round (I'm assuming he's referring to the planet commonly referred to as "Earth." Interestingly, this planet is not actually round, it's nearly round. It's actually an oblate spheroid. Even that isn't precisely true, as there are lumps and irregularities.

Lumpenproletariat had the temerity to accuse me of failing to consider other species when it was he who ignored the vast majority of biology in constructing his arguments. As with his other arguments he resorts to sharpshooter fallacies and other logical fallacies.

Consider the following:

But they must use their intelligence. All the predatory animals use intelligence more than speed and other assets. Often their prey is as fast as they are, or almost as fast, and only with their intelligence can they plan a successful attack. Speaking languages is an advanced form of intelligence, but lower levels of intelligence are also necessary.

In this typical Texas Sharpshooter fallacy Lumpenproletariat draws an imaginary bulls-eye around certain portions of the food chain. Then, in a bold thumbing of his nose at every scientific principle in the books Lumpenproletariat ignors every piece of evidence that doesn't fit his desired conclusion, Having done this Lumpenproletariat is able to support the conclusion that "All ... predatory animals use intelligence more than ... other assets."

This incisive investigation excludes any evidence that might include arachnids, reptiles, even certain imbalances of mammalian situations in which larger brains are eaten by smaller ones. Crocodiles outsmart humans using their superior intellect rather than rely on camouflage to get close. As long as one doesn't include any counter-evidence then, yes, one can draw the conclusion that the food chain always works downhill from more intelligent to less intelligent species. Which of course means human beings can never be killed or eaten by anything else. And as luck would have it that never, ever happens.

Lumpenproletariat is wrong about this, which is irrelevant since this is merely a red herring anyway. Lumpenproletariat has yet to demonstrate that somehow the ability to eat another species somehow makes one species greater than another species, and certainly has now moved several orders of magnitude away from being able to demonstrate that one human is greater than another human, something he remains unwilling to touch.

This imaginary friend was "greatest" because it was most powerful. Yet it cannot be demonstrated to do anything that isn't the result of confirmation bias. Now this imaginary friend is supposed to be "greatest" because it knows everything. Yet it hasn't demonstrated the ability to reveal knowledge of anything that once again can be attributed only to it, and not to confirmation bias. I have provided a simple scenario whereby this invisible friend can be shown to be at least somewhat powerful and somewhat intelligent. It or anyone believing it to exist is welcome to provide others, I'm all ears. If it exists I'd welcome the opportunity to add its existence and nature to the sum of my knowledge and understanding of the world around me. Thus far its existence is no better attested than the existence of leprechauns, and I reject both for the same reasons. I have many more actual things to learn about before I expire to waste my time pursuing other peoples' delusions.

 

[James Brown]

Inerrantists need for there to be a wide insuperable gulf between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. It both absolves us of previous actions committed against nature and justifies further ones.

 

[Keith&Co.]

All the predatory animals use intelligence more than speed and other assets.

How smart are Praying Mantises?

How would you measure the amount of intelligence used by a preying mantis and compare that to its speed, in order to be able to say that this predator (among ALL predators) uses intelligence more than speed? I mean, that's a pretty sweeping claim, isn't it, Lumpy? And you, or your source, must have found a way to measure the amount of impact the mantis' intelligence has on its success and the amount of impact speed has, in numbers that can be directly compared...

How would you even set up a comparison for a laboratory experiment to establish this fact?

 

[Atheos]

These red-herring arguments based on following an unsupported premise are fine for discussion's sake but they really are worthless when it comes to getting anywhere. Lumpenproletariat starts with the premise (yeah, it was introduced by Lion IRC) that some creatures are "greater" than others, then quickly starts baselessly arguing that somehow predators are greater than prey, which are "obviously" greater than plants. All based on nothing but human opinion reflecting absurd hubris.

Wooo. My invisible friend is bigger than your invisible friend. Sometimes you just gotta laugh at the absurdity.

Meanwhile I'm trying to imagine the strategy going through a frog's mind as it contemplates how to outwit the fly it's about to nab with its lightning-fast tongue. All hail the master strategist, Lieutenant General Kermit! Too bad the nearby python is a 4 star general.

 

[Keith&Co.]

These red-herring arguments based on following an unsupported premise are fine for discussion's sake but they really are worthless when it comes to getting anywhere. v

You're on page 232 of a thread long-since abandoned by the OP.
Exactly what makes you think there's any place to get to?

 

[Atheos]

Good point, but every once in awhile I like to think that the discussion is productive in some manner. My own delusion if you will. Not quite as powerful a delusion as the belief that I've got an invisible friend who created the entire universe but gets all bent out of shape if one dude strokes another dude's wee-wee, but a delusion nonetheless. You'd think I'd learn. You'd be wrong.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, seriously, I wish you the best of luck with that.
But i think i'll get as much accomplished cheating at online strip poker (I wear three pair of socks at the start....)

 

[skepticalbip]

I didn't say it was "soecifically" about the afterlife.

I find it funny to see atheists quibbling about the fine distinction between supernatural beings and the realm in which they dwell. Tell you what, how about you explain to me how Hitchens' atheism would remain intact if he found his post-mortem self in a place where he was duly "surprised".

It's safe to say that Christians will not be surprised after death if there is only oblivion.

 

[funinspace]

These red-herring arguments based on following an unsupported premise are fine for discussion's sake but they really are worthless when it comes to getting anywhere. v

You're on page 232 of a thread long-since abandoned by the OP.
Exactly what makes you think there's any place to get to?

Kind of reminds me of a comical conversation a co-worker and I had with a third person at an IT convention years ago. I was telling the third person that we were just going in circles (work-wise); and my co-worker emphatically stated 'Yeah, but I'm ahead of you'.



PS I was kind of entertained by the idea of proving the existence of Superman.

 

[funinspace]

This imaginary friend was "greatest" because it was most powerful. Yet it cannot be demonstrated to do anything that isn't the result of confirmation bias. Now this imaginary friend is supposed to be "greatest" because it knows everything. Yet it hasn't demonstrated the ability to reveal knowledge of anything that once again can be attributed only to it, and not to confirmation bias. I have provided a simple scenario whereby this invisible friend can be shown to be at least somewhat powerful and somewhat intelligent. It or anyone believing it to exist is welcome to provide others, I'm all ears. If it exists I'd welcome the opportunity to add its existence and nature to the sum of my knowledge and understanding of the world around me. Thus far its existence is no better attested than the existence of leprechauns, and I reject both for the same reasons. I have many more actual things to learn about before I expire to waste my time pursuing other peoples' delusions.

Yeah, just imagine if Yahweh had shared with purported Moses the fact that bugs, far too tiny to see, were often part of sickness (and not daemons or sin), and cleanliness does more than most anything else at reducing the chance of getting sick. He could have easily spent less time on wet dream and menstrual cycle 'cleanliness issues' to fit it in too boot....

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The Jesus miracle stories cannot be explained as a product of mythologizing, as the Joseph Smith stories can be.

You are humorous in your quixotic attempt to justify believing anonymous writers, that may have not even met your demigod, while trying to dis Joseph Smith’s (JS) paper trail.

What's important is that the writer/source should not just be someone who was a direct devotee of the demigod or healer, especially not someone under the spell of the guru's charisma for several years.

The writer's belief in the guru's alleged miracles should not be due to his having been a member of his flock and having a personal attachment to him and being impacted by his charisma. I.e., this is a less reliable source than a direct witness who was not a devotee, or someone at the time in contact with direct witnesses but not himself a direct devotee impacted directly by the guru's personality.

And knowing the writer's name is of little importance, i.e., whether the writer is "anonymous" is trivial.

You cannot demand that we have people not connected with the prophet JS for evidence, as all you have is assumed people who may have known your demigod.

The writers almost surely were not in direct contact with him. The crowds who gathered around Jesus were surely not literate. It almost surely began with ORAL REPORTS ONLY. These were eventually put into writing, a few years later.

The accounts in the gospels all suggest that the ones who started the oral reports were the victims who were healed, or their family members, or onlookers. It was not his direct disciples/devotees who started the rumors.

And it's obvious that the gospel compilers from 65 AD and later were not direct personal followers of Jesus. All the writers were using reports which they thought were reliable.

Paul admits he never met your demigod. I'd be quite content with comparing outside sources for both your demigod and for JS and his miracle, as you have none.

You're saying there are "outside sources" for the JS miracles? That's not clear. So far I think the most comprehensive presentation of the JS miracles is http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Healings_and_miracles which seems to have only sources which were his direct disciples. What is an example of a source who was not one of his direct disciples?

There should be something within 100 years from someone who was not his direct disciple. Either contemporary or later. There seems to be a problem finding anyone who attested to the miracle claims other than a few direct devotees only.

It is not difficult. Just spend 10% of the time, you do regurgitating the 739th variant of your vacuous claims, to googling the information. And you would find out that 1895 is simply a later publishing of 7 volumes, not the oldest copy of said documents. We actually have the LDS 1839-1843 originals available online as images.

The original manuscript was written between June 1839–24 Aug. 1843, which is available via scanned images here:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperS...56-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834

You need to dig out from those accounts the best example of a Joseph Smith miracle story and post it here. You don't want to do this because you know those accounts are laughable in comparison to the Jesus miracles in the gospel accounts. If you claim they are equally credible, then post one or two of them.

It has the Wilford Woodruff quote which is the strongest claim of miracles by Joseph Smith. It seems to claim Smith cured a huge number in some kind of mass healing jamboree on one day. Plus there are many other healing stories which are not too convincing.

Yeah, I don't find your miracle claims very convincing either...but that is sort of beside the point.

I'm convinced partly by the fact that the Jesus miracle claims seem to originate from sources who were not his disciples. Also the later writers were not his direct followers. This makes them more objective. Also the victims (allegedly) healed were not his direct disciples. None of these had been under the influence of his charisma.

I plead guilty to being suspicious of testimony favorable to a guru when it comes only from his personal followers who had been under the spell of his charisma, i.e., when this is the only kind of source for ALL the claims.

The below are just from one of the original sources that are available from the above link:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperS...ume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834&p=159

About this time, Ezra Booth came out as an apostate. He came into the church upon seeing a person healed of an infirmity of many year’s standing. He had been a methodist priest for some <time> previous to his embracing the fulness of the gospel, as developed in the book of Mormon,

This quote is not acceptable as evidence because it comes from Joseph Smith himself. It's from the Joseph Smith Papers, which were his writings. Even if there are some edits/inserts into the Papers, this has to be Smith writing because a few lines earlier it says:

12 September–October 1831 -- On the 12th twelfth of September I removed with my family to the township of Hiram, and commenced living with John Johnson.

This is part of the Joseph Smith timetable:

Joseph Smith and his family moved to the home of John and Elsa Johnson in Hiram, Ohio, in September 1831. The Johnson's were recent converts to the . . .
https://history.lds.org/article/historic-sites-ohio-john-johnson-home-hiram?lang=eng

The healer/miracle-worker himself cannot be the source of the miracle story because of the obvious bias, probably at least twice as great as testimony from a direct disciple, which has little or no credibility.

What's more believable would be a report from someone who knew the one healed but not the healer. Or who had reports of this, and maybe some other similar reports, and who decided there must be something to the claims because there were different stories like this coming from separate witnesses, and after several of these the reports start to become credible.

And the source should at least be one which says it was Smith who did the healing, which the above does not say. If it doesn't even say that, then it's not clear what's going on. You need a better example than this one.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperS...mber-1805-30-august-1834?p=561&highlight=heal

David <W.> Pattin [Patten] has just returned from his tour to the East, and gives us great satisfaction as to his ministry, he has raised up a church of about eighty-three members in that part of the Country, where his friends live, in the State of New York; many were healed through his instrumentality, several cripples were restored, as many as twelve that were afflicted came at a time from a distance to be healed; he and others administered in the name of Jesus, and they were made whole,

Again it is Joseph Smith himself who is the source -- not acceptable. What's the problem with coming up with a legitimate example?

And who is the miracle healer here? It's not Joseph Smith, but David Pattin who is healing them. This shows that we're talking not about Joseph Smith per se having any special or unique power, but just the usual faith-healing claims within a faith community, where "brother so-and-so" prayed for "sister so-and-so" who then recovered.

This is not what the "Jesus myth" is about. It's about a unique person in history who had singular power to heal that is not evident with any other reported healer. Where is the evidence or the accounts of another similar case? There are better examples than this of other reputed healers. Is this the best you can find?

And here is the image for the original source of the one I already provided:
http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperS...mber-1805-30-august-1834?p=221&highlight=heal

Anecdotes like these are very common among many religions. People within the church saying brother so-and-so healed someone, or they prayed and sister so-and-so recovered, and so on -- and meetings or a faith healing rally etc. These are all worshipers within the church family supporting each other and re-assuring each other that God is taking care of them, and so on.

All this is inspired from their belief in the Bible accounts, the Jesus miracles, which is a centuries-old tradition that inspires them and leads to these stories.

These are not analogous to the Jesus healing events, which came not from any religious tradition or anecdotes of the disciples, which kind are discounted by everyone who isn't a member of the religious group in question.

Sure they are analogous. The Jesus cult was constructed within the confines of the Roman Empire with Yahweh, Mithras, and Orisis floating around, with their followers with healing claims.

No, there are no healing miracle events within this environment, other than the following:

from Jewish scripture containing hundreds of miracles, 3 healings by Elisha and Elijah: 1 Kings 17:22, 2 Kings 4:34, 2 Kings 5:14); and

thousands of inscriptions on temple walls and statues of Asclepius and some other "gods" where a worshiper had come to pray to their healing god.

There was no claim, by Jesus or the disciples or anyone, of devotion to Elisha or any of these healing deities, or that he was healing in their name, or that he had any connection to these healing traditions.

By contrast it is absolutely clear that Joseph Smith did all his reported miracles in the name of Jesus Christ, as well as any alleged miracles by his followers. Everything Joseph Smith did was rooted in the earlier Christ belief going back 1800 years earlier.

All miracle healings or faith healing crusades are done in the name of a previous healing deity and tradition dating back many centuries. I.e., all except the Jesus Christ healings of the 1st century. This one healing tradition only had its beginning without any apparent attachment to a previous healing tradition or healing god or deity.

I assume that you are at least familiar with Yahweh miracle healing claims, . . .

"In the Hebrew Scriptures there are endless miracles on page after page, like a never-ending train that keeps coming and coming, and you could take a nap while the cars go by and wake up hours later and it's still going on and on with no end."

Yes, within this endless train of miracle stories there are three -- count 'em -- three miracle healing events. It should be extremely obvious that miracle healings were not something of much interest to the Jewish prophets or the Yahweh tradition.

And those 3 healing miracles are confined to the period around 600-700 BC, with no interest in such subject matter in the centuries leading up to the arrival of Jesus on the scene in the early 1st century. Jewish thought and theology were in no way heading toward the direction of anything like miracle healing stories in the Hellenistic and Roman period.

. . . even if you want to discount the more vague histories of Mithras and Osiris?

They are so vague that I doubt you can find one miracle healing involving those gods, other than people praying at temples and statues. I don't think you can find any similarity of the Jesus healing stories to those pagan worshiping practices. Other than a worshiper claiming to have recovered after praying at a statue or temple of their ancient god.

There was no such thing as a healer who arrived in the town or village and then the sick were brought in large numbers to be healed. Nothing remotely similar to this. You cannot explain where such stories originated.

Nor in the Hebrew Scriptures. If Elisha and Elijah were miracle healers of some kind, why didn't they attract crowds who came to them or brought the sick to them to be healed?

No, the miracle healing phenomenon of the gospel accounts has no precedent and no antecedent to be found anywhere in the cultural environment of the period. It popped up out of nowhere without any explanation that anyone can provide.

Whereas the Joseph Smith healing stories obviously are dependent entirely on the earlier Jesus Christ healing tradition, and Joseph Smith acknowledged this repeatedly. The Mormon religion bases all its belief and tradition on the Jesus gospel and could not have existed without this earlier background from which it evolved.

JS was constructing his new religion to compete with Christianity, . . .

With the existing Christian denominations, yes. But entirely based on the earlier Christian scriptures and Christ belief.

. . . just as Paul and his chipmunks were constructing their new religion to compete with Judaism.

Sort of. Maybe there's an analogy of Paul to Joseph Smith. But no analogy to JS can explain where the Jesus miracle healing stories came from. JS borrowed all his miracle claims from the ancient Jesus miracle legend, and his movement could never have existed without this previous tradition as the basis for his claims. He needed the previous established miracle hero in whose name he was able to win followers.

And Paul's success has a similar explanation, though not the same. What he did was cash in on a miracle legend developing, based on what really happened, which explains why the "legend" popped up suddenly, because there were so many reports circulating, so that it was more credible.

But Jesus had no such previous established miracle legend or miracle hero whose name made it possible for him to win followers. So, however Joseph Smith won over some disciples, it doesn't explain how the Jesus miracle legend got started or won followers.

Not amazingly, both groups most probably felt compelled to make their god-system competitive with the older one(s).

Again, a comparison of JS to Paul might make some sense in explaining how they proceeded to win more followers and spread their message. However, Paul did not originate the Jesus legend, but only created his own version of the Christ belief which already existed.

The proper comparison is that of Joseph Smith to Jesus, as both are reputed miracle-workers. And it is clear that we have credible evidence for the Jesus miracles, whereas the evidence for the JS miracles all originated from his direct disciples. Plus, it's clear that the JS miracle stories are all copycat stories based on the earlier Jesus miracle legend and are dependent on that earlier tradition and could not have emerged without that earlier tradition as its starting point.

Rather, the Jesus accounts are of people who came from outside the circle of his disciples and were healed and then left to tell others what had happened.

WTF? The Gospel accounts come from the circle of believers within this new Christ cult. There are NO outside accounts.

But the stories did not originate from the direct disciples of Jesus, like the JS miracle stories originated only from his direct disciples, i.e., devotees who were closely attached to the Prophet over many years and were influenced by his charisma, which explains why they believed the miracle claims and thus how these stories appeared even if the alleged miracles never really happened.

I.e., for JS we can explain how the fictional stories originated, as part of a mythologizing process, whereas the Jesus stories cannot be explained this way.

The Jesus accounts were believed by writers hundreds of miles away from where the events happened, not part of his group, and who had enough reports that they were credible, having originated not from the direct disciples, but apparently from the ones healed or their family or from onlookers who went out and reported what happened. Or from indirect witnesses who had heard it from a direct witness.

The Jesus reports did not originate from the disciples, like the J. Smith stories originated only from his direct disciples having been under the influence of his charisma over many years.

Do you enjoy making shit up? There are NO outside accounts.

Maybe not "outside" -- that's your term.

I should have said "direct" disciples, above. Also, I'm not saying there was NO miracle claim originating from the original direct disciples. Rather, the general pattern, in the gospel accounts, presents a scenario where it's non-disciples who got the stories circulating.

And the Gospel accounts we rely on were written/edited/compiled by someone who was not his direct disciple of 30 AD. We can't know for sure where they got their stories/reports. If they go back to original witnesses, these were probably ones like described in the accounts, which were usually onlookers or members of the "multitude" who were not his direct disciples, because the accounts imply those ones went out and told others and got the stories circulating.

But if you assume the stories were "made up" later, in 60 or 70 or 80 AD, then in this case also the stories did not originate from his direct disciples.

If they were "made up" by someone, probably these were believers, but still not his direct disciples. So it's not whether the accounts were "outside" or not, but whether they originated from his direct disciples, and every indication is that they did not. If they go back to the original events, around 30 AD, from direct witnesses, these were probably not the direct disciples, because the stories indicate that the ones healed and the onlookers who then told others were not his direct disciples.

The Gospels come from within the Christ cult.

You mean cults -- cults, plural. But not from the direct disciples of Jesus from 30 AD.

The question is: Where did the miracle stories come from? Who started those stories?

In the case of Joseph Smith, all the miracle stories originated from his direct disciples who had been influenced by his charisma over several years. And this explains why they believed the miracles happened, because it's a common pattern among cults that the direct devotees imagine the guru performed miracles. And all the ones reportedly healed by him were also his direct devotees only.

That it was only his direct devotees who report it shows that these miracle stories fall into the general mythologizing pattern we see with all cults led by a charismatic Prophet or Teacher said to have performed miracles. Only his direct disciples report these miracles, only they believe it, and no one else. Usually they are fiction, maybe always, and the reason the stories emerged and circulated is that the direct devotees are prone to believe it even if no miracle really happened.

But this explanation does not apply to the Jesus miracle stories. So comparing him to Joseph Smith cannot be used as an explanation as to how the stories, if fiction, emerged and circulated. So there has to be a different explanation.

There are at least two reasons why the Jesus miracle stories likely did not originate (as fictions) from his direct disciples:

1. The stories themselves, in the synoptic gospels, imply several times that the ones who first began spreading the stories were the onlookers, also the one healed in some cases, and these were never his direct disciples. It's very clear that the direct disciples, an "inner circle" of believers close to him, is a very small group compared to the "multitude" of onlookers or visitors present. And it is usually the latter who go out and tell the stories. In 1 or 2 cases the account says this explicitly, that it was non-disciples who spread the word. In most of the accounts it is implied that it was non-disciples, but not stated explicitly.

This does not apply to every miracle story, particularly not to the calming of the storm. But it applies to most of the healing stories.

2. The public ministry of Jesus was too short for him to have become mythologized (in fictional accounts) in such a short time, and such mythologizing, or legend-building, is part of the pattern of miracle-worker cults, where the guru enjoys a long career, usually decades, in which he influences his direct disciples with his charisma and also amasses a wide reputation which brings him widespread publicity and notoriety.

Joseph Smith clearly fits this pattern of having widespread notoriety over many years, both influencing hundreds of direct disciples with his charisma over a long period, and spreading his fame through the publishing media.

With this one qualifier only, that the career of JS was shorter than normal -- instead of the usual 30-40 years and longer, it was only about 20 years in his case. But his career of about 20 years, along with modern publishing, easily explains his success as a charismatic Prophet with the personal talents necessary, which led to the mythologizing among his followers. Obviously he also must have had unusual talent as a charismatic preacher.

So the obvious mythologizing factors which produced some miracle claims about Joseph Smith cannot serve to explain how the Jesus miracle legend was able to emerge and become published in such a short time.

We need something from someone other than Joseph Smith himself. And we need something originating from someone other than his direct disciples.

ROTFLMAO So straight from the horse's mouth isn't any good, but anonymous gospels written by people within the Christ cult is good?

If the stories originated from direct disciples only, the credibility is much lower. You can't figure that out? You can't understand how the direct disciples, directly impacted by the guru's charisma, are less credible in their claims about the guru's miracle power?

The problem is the very poor analogy of taking an example from the 19th century, when publishing is widespread, to compare it to the much different example from the 1st century AD, when virtually nothing was written or copied or published.

So you need to come up with a more appropriate comparison. You can't claim you've explained the Jesus miracle stories by making this comparison to a case where the conditions are so much different.

Why is it that you can't come up with a comparison to a case prior to modern publishing? You have a long period, about 3000 years of history, since the earliest writings, up to 1500 or 1600 or 1700 or so AD, in which to find another miracle legend which was published so soon after the alleged events happened. That's not long enough? You are forced to fall back on only the last 300 years to find a comparison?

Never mind that the JS volumes are known to have been compiled by known people who are known to have known JS. Notice the difference?

By this criterion we would have to disqualify virtually ALL the ancient documents. We don't know who compiled them generally, and actually they were not "compiled" at all, because all we have are some disorganized manuscripts, mostly fragments rather than the whole original writings, which are very difficult to decipher, and we don't know who had charge of these manuscripts or whether they might be forgeries. There's no way to verify the origin of ancient documents. Just having some supposed author's name on the document doesn't prove anything.

And of course we have the verification of all the modern sources, such as websites and other modern technology for checking and preserving the record, so we can have testimony of witnesses who attribute miracle acts to their favorite guru. If you think that makes the stories more credible, because there is modern technology to verify the witnesses, then you're just saying basically that anything from 500 or 1000 years ago or earlier is automatically ruled out no matter what.

No, it's not necessary to create artificial standards which basically rule out and exclude ALL historical records before modern times. We're entitled to include more than that. The ancient documents also have a legitimate place in the historical record. We can deal with the problems of verification and origin of the writings, but we need not impose a protocol forcing us to automatically flush all the ancient record down the toilet.

In one case we know who wrote the documents, . . .

Again, there is nothing inferior about "anonymous" documents. This is a phony criterion contrived here only for rejecting the gospel accounts as a source, when this is never used in other cases to reject a document as a source.

Just because a document has a name attached to it does not mean it's more reliable. There are many problems with identifying the source and the author's credibility for the documents generally, even if there is a name attached. That name being attached does not resolve the problems, and the anonymity is at worst a very minor problem.

You can't name any document rejected as a historical source just because it's "anonymous."

. . . in what years they were written, . . .

On this point you're just factually wrong. The gospel accounts and the Paul epistles are dated with equal accuracy to most other documents of the time. Very few can be precisely dated to within 20 years of when they were written.

Or again, you're contriving a guideline here for automatically excluding MOST documents prior to 1000, and thus MOST of our mainline history. It is very common to accept ancient documents as sources even though they cannot be dated precisely.

. . . and we know that the compilers knew the prophet in question.

You mean that for MODERN documents we know more definitely who the compilers were and who they had contact with or how close they were to the reported events. Yes, you're right, once again you are giving a criterion here for disqualifying MOST documents or sources for history prior to 1000 or 500 years ago.

Why do you think it so important to give these protocols for excluding so much of our history? You think you're cleverly finding a way to exclude the gospel accounts, which you have a bias against, but these standards you're propping up for us to adopt also would disqualify most of our mainline history for anything that happened 1000 or 2000 years ago. Is that your intent? To exclude ALL the record, or MOST of it, for that earlier history? Do you propose to shut down all the history classes and history textbooks we accept as standard?

For most of the ancient history sources, the writers/compilers did NOT know "the prophet in question" or the historical character they reported on.

In the other case, we can only assume that some of the writers knew their demigod, . . .

No, I think the general consensus is that the gospel writers and also Paul did not know Jesus directly, as most all sources for history back then did not know the historical figure they wrote about. Paul claimed some mystical contact with him, like others since then have claimed, but not the historical Jesus known by the direct disciples.

The assumption generally is that the later writers had information, from sources, oral reports, and even some written reports now lost, about the earlier events, going back to 30 AD. So the knowledge of Jesus was indirect, for the later gospel writers/editors. But most of their information, written and oral, likely originated from the earlier direct witnesses, including both direct disciples and non-disciples who were present.

. . . but we really aren't positive as the first document came at least 3 decades after the end of the events, but the years are super fuzzy.

No more "fuzzy" than in the case of our mainline sources for normal historical events.

(The Paul epistles are separated by only 25 years or so.)

The dating of the epistles and gospel accounts is just as definite as for most other documents of the time which are accepted as sources for the events, i.e., the normal events which are routinely believed. It's normal for there to be doubts about the dating of documents which are sources for the period.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What's important is that the writer/source should not just be someone who was a direct devotee of the demigod or healer, especially not someone under the spell of the guru's charisma for several years.

What's far more important is that the foretold messiah was not supposed to be a demigod. Rather, the Christ was to be fully human.
Jesus was disqualified.
Spinning your wheels on which account of the demigod is the historical one is missing the point

 

[Atheos]

Lumpenproletariat starts off his latest wall of text with:

What's important is that the writer/source should not just be someone who was a direct devotee of the demigod or healer, especially not someone under the spell of the guru's charisma for several years.

Since Lumpenproletariat has no clue who the writer/source is he gets to make up yet more shit and pretend it's an established fact that whoever sourced this material fits his sharpshooter-fallacy-ridden criteria and somehow gains credibility.

It's wrong to argue that people who weren't direct eyewitnesses are have higher credibility than people who were. It's wrong to argue that if we don't know where the material came from we get to make up some scenario that we believe benefits our position and pretend like it's what actually happened. It's wrong to argue that extraordinary claims (including those about miracles) somehow take centuries to gestate and cannot possibly spring up overnight. It's wrong to argue that anecdotes about miracles add credibility to a narrative. This is never the case.

It's also interesting that oftentimes apologists will resort to examples based on the judicial system and then abandon such arguments the moment they become inconvenient. Every judge worth his (or her) salt will summarily and immediately rule "hearsay" testimony invalid and order the jury to disregard it. "Hearsay" is defined as anything to which the person testifying is not a direct witness. This is because of years of discovering just how likely it is that people will lie about the "facts" even when they are under oath and under threat of perjury.

We have countless examples of hoaxes about every kind of extraordinary claim imaginable that grow up seemingly overnight. Lumpenproletariat would have us believe that human nature completely changed over the last 2000 years and back then people didn't make shit up to promote an agenda. The desire to promote a religion is a powerful agenda. Pious fraud is (and always has been) rampant. Lumpenproletariat would have us ignore all of this in spite of the staggering amount of evidence that this very thing was going on in the very narratives to which he appeals.

The miracle claims contained in the gospel narratives not only can be explained as myths, they are best explained that way. Lumpenproletariat keeps using this other term he made up called "normal mythologizing" to draw an imaginary circle around his favorite fairy tale. He can keep repainting the bulls-eye, but we'll just keep hosing it off. It's certainly not painted with indelible ink. Heck, the ink is so fragile that it fades and disappears completely when simply exposed to nothing more than the light of truth.

Lumpenproletariat still hasn't justified why we should think that a god with a message should have to resort to parlor tricks anyway. Most Muslims argue that the great truth and unique loftiness of Mohammad's message prove that these words came from Allah, and that parlor tricks were not necessary. Makes sense in a way: You'd think that if there was a god whose thoughts were that much higher than mankind's that a message from that mind would be immediately recognizable by everyone without having to do parlor tricks.

But of course now that Lumpenproletariat has invested so much in the "Jesus would have had no reputation if it weren't for the miracles" play it's going to be difficult to shoehorn a reputation based on his wisdom and the charismatic way he inspired those around him. After all, such a reputation would undermine the very thing he's trying to contend: that there was no incentive for his followers to make up stories about him, and that they couldn't have done so in "merely" 40 years. This is hard to swallow in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, especially when one considers the milieu in which it gestated: a deeply Jewish tradition filled with legends of miracle-working prophets.