The real religion?

[Crossless2.0]

I mean, I could say that Jesus coming back to life violates everything we know about biology, chemistry, and physics, but he'd simply wave that away with a "Well, he is the son of god."  Which is hilarious, really.

Ditto with walking on water, turning water into wine, healing people (pretty amazing before germ theory), predicting various things (like Peter refusing him three times), etc.

So...you don't think there is evidence for God, miracles would be obvious evidence for God, the NT is not true because it contains miracles. That is a very good example of circular reasoning. Congrats.

And it's because we both are willing to believe that everything we 'know' about the way the world operates can be suspended on hearsay based on the say-so of clearly self-interested, alleged witnesses that we have both embraced the Good News of Apollonius of Tyana, right Steve? Right?!?

Or is this where you (a) indulge in special pleading or (b) an appeal to popularity.

[Jesster]

The point is that simply because something is written down doesn't mean it's true, especially when it comes to increasing one's political power (which is what religion is... it's a political apparatus).  

Attempting to turn the tables by saying "Well, do you know it's false?" is ridiculous.  Just because I cannot demonstrate something is, in actuality, false does not lend truth to the thing in question.  Without corroborating evidence (of which there is none... no, a religion's popularity isn't evidence of its truthfulness, and neither are assumed documents that were the foundation of the NT documents, which, for the nth time, IS THE CLAIM), assuming that they're true is simply ridiculous.

So, nothing to support your 'start a religion of power and money' theory. 

No, the NT is not the claim. It catalogs and explains a belief about events that predates it. So, the claim would be that Jesus lived, taught, died and rose again. Paul wrote his letters to churches that very obviously believed the claims prior to his writing them (as did the other epistle authors). Later, the 4 gospel editors used eyewitness accounts and previous documents to try to give a thorough account of the claim. 

So stop with the nonsense mantra that the NT is the claim. It is not.

You just made a claim about the NT claim. Keep stacking those. It doesn't make it more true until we see the evidence. To start, there's no evidence of any eyewitness accounts. Another claim.

[SteveII]

Again with the science. You have described scientific evidence and tried to apply it to a field that has nothing to do with science: history and historical documents.

...lol, really, nothing to do with it?

What event in history could ever stand up to your criteria of: 'Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities'? No that is not what evidence is. 

In addition, you said in two different sentences that the 'bible is not evidence' and then 'is not good evidence'. Which is it?

Aren't all experiences subjective? Why would eyewitness accounts not be good evidence in a historical context?

What eyewitness accounts?  Eyewitness to what, exactly, while we're at it?

Peter, James, John, Luke said he spoke to eyewitnesses to write his 2 books. Paul claimed to know and discuss the events with eyewitnesses.

[GrandizerII]

So...you don't think there is evidence for God, miracles would be obvious evidence for God, the NT is not true because it contains miracles. That is a very good example of circular reasoning. Congrats.

And it's because we both are willing to believe that everything we 'know' about the way the world operates can be suspended on hearsay based on the say-so of clearly self-interested, alleged witnesses that we have both embraced the Good News of Apollonius of Tyana, right Steve? Right?!?

Or is this where you (a) indulge in special pleading or (b) an appeal to popularity.

I'm quoting Crossless1, but this response is for Steve because I can't be arsed looking for the specific post quoted by Crossless1:

I don't know about anyone else, but I personally wouldn't say that the NT is not true because of its miracle claims. Rather, miracles are implausible, and the miracle claims made in the NT seem to serve a theological agenda, so that makes some parts of the NT suspect.

[The Grand Nudger]

...lol, really, nothing to do with it?

What eyewitness accounts?  Eyewitness to what, exactly, while we're at it?

Peter, James, John, Luke said he spoke to eyewitnesses to write his 2 books. Paul claimed to know and discuss the events with eyewitnesses.

So you have stories -about- what the authors profess to be second hand eyewitness accounts....of what events?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41ENCM70xr0
Ah yes, "evidence".......

[purplepurpose]

Christianity is better than depression or heavy addiction, for example. People there strive to become a bit more caring. Thats sweet.

We need more those kind of believers because they strive to do the right things as long as try to practice their religion and dont try to sell it to others in a very silly and persistent way.

[Jesster]

...lol, really, nothing to do with it?

What eyewitness accounts?  Eyewitness to what, exactly, while we're at it?

Peter, James, John, Luke said he spoke to eyewitnesses to write his 2 books. Paul claimed to know and discuss the events with eyewitnesses.

So they weren't eyewitnesses themselves.

"This one guy told me that he saw..." doesn't cut it.

[The Grand Nudger]

It hardly matters whether or not it cuts it, Steve..predictably, misrepresented not only that he had "evidence"...but what that evidence -was-.  It's no wonder he's come to such a silly conclusion when he's been this sloppy with the process he -didn't- use to reach it.

The sun revolves around the earth. I have evidence. The evidence is this, my daughter likes orange creamsicles. Well, that's what her sister said she told her brother, anyway.

[SteveII]

So...you don't think there is evidence for God, miracles would be obvious evidence for God, the NT is not true because it contains miracles. That is a very good example of circular reasoning. Congrats.

And it's because we both are willing to believe that everything we 'know' about the way the world operates can be suspended on hearsay based on the say-so of clearly self-interested, alleged witnesses that we have both embraced the Good News of Apollonius of Tyana, right Steve? Right?!?

Or is this where you (a) indulge in special pleading or (b) an appeal to popularity.

Except the parts that are not hearsay, the parts that have no evidence of any theory about lying for self interest (oh, that would be all of it), and the parts that are eyewitness testimony (Peter, James, John, Luke reporting the testimony of eyewitnesses, and Paul spending time with and referring to eyewitnesses). You haven't mentioned the churches that pre-existed the NT docs...but I'm sure we can find a way to dismiss those pesky facts.  Yes, except for these exceptions you have an exceptional argument. 

Special pleading? Appeal to popularity? Don't have to. Got the evidence above.

[FatAndFaithless]

Reporting on supposed eyewitness accounts =/= eyewitness accounts...