(July 6, 2016 at 12:01 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 6, 2016 at 11:21 am)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: You're saying I don't want to think deeply?

Have you thought deeply about the possibility that magical rainbow unicorns exist? I mean, why would people lie about there being magical rainbow unicorns Steve, huh?! Do you realise that if we believe in the Unicorns, their rainbow magic will allow is to live forever in the magical world of stardust?

You think you're so superior with your Jesus - like Jesus would win in a fight against a Unicorn. Yeah right.

Thanks for proving my point.

Steve are you that chicken that you won't even try to refute my counter to your six "evidences" for christianity.

(July 6, 2016 at 1:04 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 6, 2016 at 12:18 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You have a bunch of circumstantial evidence.  So do they.  Both cases are weak.  I've yet to see a difference.

You are comparing apples and oranges.I don't think it is reasonable to think the NT authors were simply mistaken (as there is ample reasons to think UFO people are)--especially with the additional evidence of the existing churches. The only plausible explanation of the contents being false is intentional deception. That would have been quite an undertaken and I think we would need to answer the question why?

How is a of third person hearsay (the new testament) better evidence than first person belief (ufo "abductees")? At least the ufo people can talk about what they think happen to them, the best you can say for a few books of the new testament is that they are based off letters wriiten by a man who never met his religious leader, thirty years after that leader's death, while at doctrinal odds (in his own words) with those who knew this leader. And then you've got the fact that singificant early documents were destroyed because they didn't agree with later invented orthodoxy and even that significant events depicted in the current bible were fabricated to support this later orthodoxy.

Ufology has more going for it in evidential terms than christianity.

Since approaching religion and theism in general, my question has been, "Is God a coherent concept?"

My answer so far, in general, is no.

It most often seems to be an intelligent creator (stop here and we could have a meaningful discussion) covered in layers upon layers of superpowers, superlatives and word salad in general. Quite often it's given so many powers that it can't do anything without contradicting itself.

Are people doing this because they're really scared someone might come along with a bigger God?

And for all that waffle, no one has been able to tell me what relevance it has to my life other than trying to hold my future hostage. Or how I'm supposed to tell it apart from nothing at all.

(July 6, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Ignorant Wrote: ALL this demonstration shows is that while some things, RIGHT NOW, depend on the existence of other, simultaneously existing, more fundamental things, something must exist without that or any such condition. It simply exists, and would exist if nothing else existed at all. Call it whatever you want.

And that thing you talk about is the universe, ni god included nor needed.

Oh and the reason I used creatard is because when I boiled out all the nonsense word salad from your previous post, all I got was a badly worded version of Paley's argument from design, which was refuted in On the Origin of Species.

(July 6, 2016 at 7:58 pm)LivingNumbers6.626 Wrote: The Mother Mary appeared on my toast this morning. #checkmate

Was she tasty?

(July 7, 2016 at 6:28 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(July 6, 2016 at 1:04 pm)SteveII Wrote: You are comparing apples and oranges.I don't think it is reasonable to think the NT authors were simply mistaken (as there is ample reasons to think UFO people are)--especially with the additional evidence of the existing churches. The only plausible explanation of the contents being false is intentional deception. That would have been quite an undertaken and I think we would need to answer the question why?

How is a of third person hearsay (the new testament) better evidence than first person belief (ufo "abductees")? At least the ufo people can talk about what they think happen to them, the best you can say for a few books of the new testament is that they are based off letters wriiten by a man who never met his religious leader, thirty years after that leader's death, while at doctrinal odds (in his own words) with those who knew this leader. And then you've got the fact that singificant early documents were destroyed because they didn't agree with later invented orthodoxy and even that significant events depicted in the current bible were fabricated to support this later orthodoxy.

Ufology has more going for it in evidential terms than christianity.

Why is the NT third-person hearsay? Peter, James and John were eyewitnesses. The gospels editors borrowed from even earlier sources so those sources would certainly be from near the time of the events. UFO abductees do not have corroborating testimony such as the 27 different documents from 8 authors and a pre-existing church that believed the same thing. This is how historical events work. By your standard, we could not believe anything about history ever.

Please present your scholarly backup for: "the fact that singificant early documents were destroyed because they didn't agree with later invented orthodoxy and even that significant events depicted in the current bible were fabricated to support this later orthodoxy." (when I say scholarly, something more than a 1-off, Christian bashing, obviously biased, never been published in academic journals, popular level book-writing, author). Then we can discuss it.