The real religion?

[RoadRunner79]

I didn't make any truth claim here;  I was just discussing the validity of witness testimony as evidence and the flat denial of testimony without qualification or any critical thinking.

First, Just to be clear:  I am not making the claim, "there is no God."  Theists make the claim, "i believe there is a god".  (Thanks Crossless!)  My position is, I withhold belief that this claim is true, or likely to be true, until sufficient evidence for the claim can be demonstrated.  

To address your above point:  You're saying that you aren't making the claim that the bible is accurate; that Jesus is the son of God, and that humans experience a personal relationship with him?  Well, that's pretty dishonest of you.  What would God think about you saying that here?  Just because you didn't start this discussion doesn't mean you aren't making any truth claims about your religion, and frankly, it's pretty slippery of you to try and wriggle out of the burden of proof this way.  

In the context of this discussion, no; I'm not making a claim here about the validity of the testimony of Scripture.  How is this slippery?   I'm discussing a problem I see in the discussion thus far.

For instance, where I came into the discussion, was the unqualified rejection of witness testimony as evidence.

Unqualified rejection?  Eye-witness testimony has been shown to be unreliable over and over again.  Here is just one recent article on the subject, if you're interested.  There are many:

Http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/h...ists-weigh

I'm not saying eye-witness testimony is irrelevant; I'm saying that by itself, it's not sufficient.  If it wouldn't be enough to sentence a person to life in prison, it certainly shouldn't be enough to convince you of any supernatural, magical claims coming from anywhere.

Did you read past the title of the article you cited?   What in the article do think applies to this conversation?  Should I trust what Loftus seen in her studies?

Eye witness testimony is It was said, that what was testified about in a book, was not evidence.  My assumption about our conversation so far, was that you where making this argument as well.  And yet here, you give an example from science calling that which is written in a database.... evidence.   Now if you are saying, that what the writers of scripture claimed to have seen is not evidence, but this database is;  please explain why.  What is the difference?

I feel like I am talking to a brick wall...  

A book full of testimonies is not the same as a book containing data derived from tests.  can you name ONE test that has corroborated a supernatural claim made by eye-witnesses in the bible?  

Ok... if testimony is not sufficient evidence.   So then the testimony about data written in books (or a database) from scientific tests is not sufficient either... correct?  Why is one observation to be trusted and another not?  Are the words "test" and "data" magic?   It appears that in both cases, we have a transfer of information about what we didn't personally experience, but based on what another observed.  If these are not sufficient evidence, then that would leave me with only what I have seen as evidence.   Interestingly concerning miracles, some here have said, that they would not believe, even if they had seen (which seems  to be begging the question), as they eliminate any possible evidence a priori.

Also I can understand if you feel like you are talking to a brick wall... I often feel the same way, when I encounter these types sophism and selective hyper-skepticism.  You really can't win in these types of discussions (at least in the mind of the opposition).  I think that I am being fairly generous in allowing you to make the rules,  I only ask, that we don't shift the goal posts and be consistent.