I'm not picking on your religion in particular, because every religion begins with the same kind of story. You'd think that angelic beings and gods who are eager to spread a message of salvation and routinely appear to all and sundry would do a better job of it. The fact that not a scrap of real evidence exists for any of these claims should suggest that gods and angels are human surrogates that we invent. But ordinary humans who were monkeys 10 minutes ago on the evolutionary timeline might be inclined to personify their own desire not to die and invent such stories for fun, and more than anything else, profit. If a real god wanted people not to die, we wouldn't die. Period. But religions don't make that claim, for obvious reasons. Only claims that cannot possibly be examined or certified to be true are at the heart of every religion. There is no tangible evidence, and there never will be.
This gemli sounds like a rational fellow who requires evidence that justifies the claim. It's his understanding that the plates exist only as part of a story told by those who had a stake in its being believed, and who were in the orbit of a very charismatic individual who was not unknown to a sheriff or two. Like all holy artifacts that would remove all doubt, these plates are claimed to have existed but are now lost, buried, stolen, hidden, removed or in some other way inaccessible. When one considers that angels would take the trouble to appear and spread the word of God almighty, it's puzzling that the evidence that would certify the claim is always missing. It's also surprising that such appearances seem to have happened back when cameras didn't exist, and when skepticism was in short supply.
It's gemli's view that the many, many religions people have believed in over the centuries are a natural and almost necessary part of the human condition. To take advantage of this tendency might seem tempting to some.
But when stories of evidence are presented as evidence, only those who are temperamentally inclined to believe such things are likely to buy it.
bolded to note yet another extremely cogent point from gemli.
gemli: "This gemli sounds like a rational fellow who requires evidence that justifies the claim."
Not really, no. You need to learn more about this gemli. Of course, I know that you're strikingly incurious, but, still . . .
gemli: "It's his understanding that the plates exist only as part of a story told by those who had a stake in its being believed, and who were in the orbit of a very charismatic individual who was not unknown to a sheriff or two."
Gemli is quite uninformed. But he's happy with his ignorance.
-----
gemli > DanielPeterson • 2 hours ago
The witnesses were not familiar with each other? They had no connection to Joseph Smith? Smith was not a charismatic individual? He had no history of legal trouble, jail, etc.?
gemli always manages to poke a hole in Peterson's balloon.
The witnesses were not familiar with each other? They had no connection to Joseph Smith? Smith was not a charismatic individual? He had no history of legal trouble, jail, etc.?
even if the claim weren't unbelievable on its face, there would be nothing compelling about their value as witnesses for even very ordinary claims. Gemli hits the major points in his questions.
In fact, the longer snippet of the Witnesses film shows that it undercuts the apologists' own claims about the value of witnesses. I've thought about doing a post on that, but I'll wait to see the movie first.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
...If the "historical evidence" for the plates is "overwhelming," then what about evidence for UFOs? Or Bigfoot? At least with these latter two things, we have photographic and filmic evidence--and you can't say that for the witnesses. Moreover, there are just a handful of people who claimed to have seen the Gold Plates, whereas there are tens of thousands of people who claim to have seen UFOs. Is Dr. Peterson going to start donating 10% of his income to UFO worshippers? Does he concede that the evidence for them is "overwhelming"?
UFO movies haven't done so well, ether.
Well, I don't know: my recollection is that Independence Day did fairly well at the box office. Or are you referring more to films like Fire in the Sky? (Which, incidentally, actually involved Mormons--i.e., the story it's based upon.) In any case, something like the X Files or any number of extraterrestrial-related films have far, far more entertainment value than anything related to the stupid witnesses. DCP's commentary as of late just reveals how deeply invested he is in using the movies as a piece of Mopologetic agitprop.
Last edited by Doctor Scratch on Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
The witnesses were not familiar with each other? They had no connection to Joseph Smith? Smith was not a charismatic individual? He had no history of legal trouble, jail, etc.?
even if the claim weren't unbelievable on its face, there would be nothing compelling about their value as witnesses for even very ordinary claims. Gemli hits the major points in his questions.
"The witnesses were not familiar with each other?" is especially funny. I mean, switch things up this way: "So, Jimmy Gambino's fingerprints were found at the crime scene, and Bobby Gambino was driving a car that afternoon, and Salvatore Gambino was seeing throwing something off a bridge, and poor Joe Smithmasson has now gone missing, and allegedly he owed debts to the Gambinos, but I guess we can look the other way, since, you know, they're all related to each other, and thus they would never lie to cover for one another?"
DCP comes across as a desperate oaf with these arguments.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Peterson wrote:
gemli: "Smith was not a charismatic individual?"
That's a rather vague concept, but yes, he seems to have been. And you think that "charisma" would somehow cause people to imagine handling very heavy objects?
This is just getting funnier and funnier. The idea that charisma and the imagined weights of imaginary items are related for some reason just strikes me as hilarious.
gemli always manages to poke a hole in Peterson's balloon.
