Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2013, 06:30 PM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2013 07:09 PM by Revenant77x.)
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(12-06-2013 06:05 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 10:53 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  John Smith's conviction of fraud is actually relevant to defining his character so it is not a fallacy to bring it up. It also means his story would require more proof not less. The entire circumstances around the founding of the Mormon church leads one to see it is nothing but a new con by a convicted conman. Had the Mormon Bible not been composed by that single author then yes you could make a case but in this instance it is all too relevant.

One's character is irrelevant to whether one's argument is actually true. Consider the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. At the end of the story, the villagers allow the sheep to get eaten because they make the same mistake that you are, that the boy's credibility is important in determining whether the wolf is real or not -- and they make the wrong call.

I didn't make up the fallacy of Ad Hominem -- it's a fallacy whether or not you like it, and whether or not you are biased towards the person making the claim. To be fair, John Smith's credibility isn't a non-issue, but it only becomes relevant when he asks you to "take his word for it"... an argument from authority is undermined by a lack of credibility.

As to the fallacy I am not dismissing out of hand simply because he was convicted of fraud but because his story taxes all degrees of credulity. Would he have been an upstanding member of the community this tale would still be suspect. "I found some golden plates written in ancient hebrew that I have magic stones to translate because an Angel told me where they where. No you can't see them only I can look at them." Since the tale itself is so unbelievable adding to that the fact that he was a convicted conman is not an ad hominem attack.

The problem with the boy who cried wolf and this is had the villagers gone to check there would have been a wolf in this instance when he was first tested he failed to reproduce the work (showing that it was not a translation but a story he was making up on the fly) and then later claimed that the golden plates had been "lost". Noone other than Smith ever saw the supposed plates so an examination of his character is warranted.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
12-06-2013, 06:58 PM
Re: RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(12-06-2013 06:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  As to the fallacy I am not dismissing out of hand simply because he was convicted of fraud but because his story taxes all degrees of credulity. Would he have been an upstanding member of the community this tale would still be suspect. "I found some golden plates written in ancient hebrew that I have magic stones to translate because an Angel told me where they where. No you can see them only I can look at them." Since the tale itself is so unbelievable adding to that the fact that he was a convicted conman is not an ad hominem attack.

The problem with the boy who cried wolf and this is had the villagers gone to check there would have been a wolf in this instance when he was first tested he failed to reproduce the work (showing that it was not a translation but a story he was making up on the fly) and then later claimed that the golden plates had been "lost". Noone other than Smith ever saw the supposed plates so an examination of his character is warranted.

I think that Star is a Mormon. Why else would he defend a proven conman that Smith was? This is an observation of his replies. There is benefit of the doubt, but in Smith"s there was no doubt. If it quacks like a duck......... Nonthing he said could be trusted.

Sent From My NEO x5....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 09:03 PM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2013 09:10 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(12-06-2013 06:58 PM)Stephen Charchuk Wrote:  I think that Star is a Mormon. Why else would he defend a proven conman that Smith was? This is an observation of his replies. There is benefit of the doubt, but in Smith"s there was no doubt. If it quacks like a duck......... Nonthing he said could be trusted.

I'm not defending John Smith; I'm defending rational argument. Apparently you haven't even attempted to look at my past posts and see for yourself where my bias is. But despite having pro-atheist bias, I'm not controlled by my bias because I make every attempt to be rational. You have not.

Have you ever lied in your life? If a Christian argued using the exact same standard that you're using, then they could dismiss anything you say by claiming that you can't be trusted. This means that if you claimed the Earth was round that you couldn't be believed, but if someone that this Christian trusted claimed the Earth was round then it would suddenly become true. Does that sound logical to you?

If a Mormon claimed that there were 11 witnesses that also saw the golden plates but were not con men, then what would you say to refute them? Because you insist on taking this irrational route, you'd have to accept the credible men among them in order to keep your arguments consistent (that is, to not be a hypocrite or two-faced).

My arguments remain consistent and logical whenever possible. I don't always feel the need to tear down religion at any cost. I won't cheat or manipulate facts to keep my side of the argument looking like the better one. If I didn't feel I was on the right side of the issue, then I wouldn't be on it.

Geez, how many times do I have to argue against this same stupid point? Especially when there are much better arguments against the Book of Mormon...

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 10:10 PM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
Starcrash, what an interesting point, if a little hard to follow. "The book of mormon" is wrong which can be shown. Joseph Smith was a con man which can be shown. But, simply because Joseph Smith was a con man that does not prove the "Book of mormon" is wrong. I have a little bit of trouble wrapping my mind around your point.

It seems rather pedantic to me. You want things to be phrased exactly like you would and those who don't should be called out for it. I find this difficult.

The mormon church like all churches is a con. The mormon church is notable for the fact it was started by a con man, why does that discussion cause you such trouble.

About the 11 witnesses. I suspect (without any real proof) that the 3 who were eventually excommunicated never recanted their stories because they knew that doing so would put them at risk of their life. Anybody who knows early mormon history knows this could be a real threat.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JAH's post
12-06-2013, 10:52 PM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
Starcrash, your logic is sound from my point of view. Your only mistake was appearing to defend J. Smith (this forum can be a bit knee jerk when it comes to anything religion), when in reality you are defending honest argument.

Smith's reputation would be a very good reason to question his claims more critically, but not necessarily to outright dismiss them without any investigation. Drinking Beverage

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2013, 05:41 AM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2013 05:53 AM by Stephen Charchuk.)
Re: RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(12-06-2013 10:52 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Starcrash, your logic is sound from my point of view. Your only mistake was appearing to defend J. Smith (this forum can be a bit knee jerk when it comes to anything religion), when in reality you are defending honest argument.

Smith's reputation would be a very good reason to question his claims more critically, but not necessarily to outright dismiss them without any investigation. Drinking Beverage

When all the evidence points one way and your logiic another than I say that the logic used was dream logic..

What also gets me about Mormonism are those who convert to it even AFTER learning of Smith's exposed fraud. Their gulibility is beyond epic.

In an honest arguement there would have been no excuse to defend Smith. He was already found guilty. It's like a lawyer who tries to get their client off on a technocality even though they know that he's guilty.

Again, "Fool me once......" From then on EVERYTHING he did would be suspect. That is an honest expectation. Come on, he literally "recited" the second story out of his "hat". Du'h!

Sent From My NEO x5....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2013, 05:57 AM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2013 08:08 AM by Stephen Charchuk.)
Re: RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(12-06-2013 10:10 PM)JAH Wrote:  It seems rather pedantic to me. You want things to be phrased exactly like you would and those who don't should be called out for it. I find this difficult.

It sounds somewhat arrogant to me....

Sent From My NEO x5....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2013, 10:46 AM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2013 02:06 PM by JAH.)
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
Evenheathen, I continue to not understand the logic.

OK, simply saying that Joseph Smith was convicted of fraud does not prove absolutely that the book of mormon was a fraud. That is correct on its surface.

Coupling his history with the bat shit crazy story of how the book of mormon was revealed to him should cause a thinking person great pause. The fact that he is the only one to ever know the meaning of the magic gold tablets should confirm that it was a fraud. Of the so called 11 witnesses above 3 had a "vision" and the 8 who claimed to have handled the magic tablets were very much beholden to Smith, none claimed to have used the magic translator devices to read the words themselves.

I understand that the debate method which says a statement is wrong because of the person saying it is a weak method.

If the person taking a position expects that those to whom they are making it understand the whole or most of the story (which is what I presume in this case) there is a very much different situation.

A simple example. Saying Lyndon Johnson lied about the Tonkin Gulf incident does not prove that. Anyone however who pays attention does know that it is true and the speaker should not need to provide all the references that prove that. Assuming it is the correct audience.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JAH's post
13-06-2013, 10:54 AM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
(13-06-2013 10:46 AM)JAH Wrote:  Evenheathen, I continue to not understand the logic.

OK, simply saying that Joseph Smith was convicted of fraud does not probe absolutely that the book of mormon was a fraud. That is correct on its surface.

Coupling his history with the bat shit crazy story of how the book of mormon was revealed to him should cause a thinking person great pause. The fact that he is the only one to ever see the magic gold tablets should confirm that it was a fraud. The so called 11 witnesses mention above only had some sort of vision (I will not go back and look it up in detail) they did not see the hard copy.

I understand that the debate method which says a statement is wrong because of the person saying is a weak method.

If the person taking a position expects that those to whom they are making it understand the whole or most of the story (which is what I presume in this case) there is a very much different situation.

A simple example. Saying Lyndon Johnson lied about the Tonkin Gulf incident does not prove that. Anyone however who pays attention does know that it is true and the speaker should not need to provide all the references that prove that. Assuming it is the correct audience.

The problem here is it is only a logical fallacy if that is the only plank of the argument. The value of testimony is weighted with experts being given more credibility and say a convicted felon given far less. If the only attack was based on his character yes it would be a weak (but not fallacious) argument on the value of his testimony. Since, as we know, Joseph Smith is the sole witness to the supposed miraculous events an examination of the worth of his testimony is not fallacious but is indeed a necessary argument and not an Ad Hominem attack.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
13-06-2013, 11:04 AM
RE: Atheists can only criticize the Old Testament but not the New
I had to go back to edit my above post. I checked and indeed the 11 witnesses claimed to have seen the gold tablets. 3 in a vision and 8 very much connected to Smith.

I hope this causes no confusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: