Posts: 3064
Threads: 3
Joined: July 10, 2016
Reputation:
37
RE: The real religion?
August 16, 2016 at 2:05 pm
(August 16, 2016 at 2:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: (August 16, 2016 at 1:55 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Oh my god, it never stops.
You: there is evidence for God: the bible
Me: the bible is not evidence. Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities
You: well, that's SCIENTIFIC evidence. Since God cannot be detected scientifically, you have to accept this "other" kind of non-scientific, special evidence. If you don't accept it, then you are ignoring evidence.
Me: But...one old book and a bunch of testimonials of subjective experience is not good evidence...
You: yes it is. Because...it is. You're ignoring evidence.
*face palm*
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have described scientific evidence and tried to apply it to a field that has nothing to do with science: history and historical documents. 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?
Because science has nothing to say about how the laws of reality have worked throughout history. Open a damn book other than the bible sometime.
I don't believe you. Get over it.
Posts: 2501
Threads: 158
Joined: April 19, 2013
Reputation:
19
RE: The real religion?
August 16, 2016 at 2:08 pm
(August 16, 2016 at 2:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: (August 16, 2016 at 1:55 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Oh my god, it never stops.
You: there is evidence for God: the bible
Me: the bible is not evidence. Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities
You: well, that's SCIENTIFIC evidence. Since God cannot be detected scientifically, you have to accept this "other" kind of non-scientific, special evidence. If you don't accept it, then you are ignoring evidence.
Me: But...one old book and a bunch of testimonials of subjective experience is not good evidence...
You: yes it is. Because...it is. You're ignoring evidence.
*face palm*
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have described scientific evidence and tried to apply it to a field that has nothing to do with science: history and historical documents. 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?
People easily trust historical documents, because they have 0 impact on their life.
Bible demands people to sell their live to the church.
Posts: 3064
Threads: 3
Joined: July 10, 2016
Reputation:
37
RE: The real religion?
August 16, 2016 at 2:09 pm
(August 16, 2016 at 2:08 pm)purplepurpose Wrote: (August 16, 2016 at 2:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: 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. 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?
People easily trust historical documents, because they have 0 impact on their life.
Bible demands people to sell their live to the church.
Don't forget that it also makes claims that would alter our view of reality if true.
I don't believe you. Get over it.
Posts: 2501
Threads: 158
Joined: April 19, 2013
Reputation:
19
RE: The real religion?
August 16, 2016 at 2:11 pm
(August 16, 2016 at 2:09 pm)Jesster Wrote: (August 16, 2016 at 2:08 pm)purplepurpose Wrote: People easily trust historical documents, because they have 0 impact on their life.
Bible demands people to sell their live to the church.
Don't forget that it also makes claims that would alter our view of reality if true.
Again, view enchantments are done to buy our lifes and "bring ultimate fulfilment and happiness".
Posts: 9914
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
The real religion?
August 16, 2016 at 2:18 pm
Quote: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.
Oh no, are you busting out Ken Ham's 'historical science versus observational science?' Please...just don't.
I'm saying that historical documents ALONE (I find it laughable that anyone could consider the bible an accurate historical document in the first place, but nvm) are not SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to support claims of angels flying around, talking donkeys, and people coming back from the dead. The bible may very well be evidence, but it's certainly not evidence of what you THINK it is.
Quote:what event in history could ever stand up to your criteria of: 'Evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, measurable, and has predictive qualities'?
I'm sorry...have you heard of fields like archeology and paleontology?
Quote:you said in two different sentences that the 'bible is not evidence' and then 'is not good evidence'. Which is it?
Pick one, dude. It really makes little difference to me as far as "compelling" goes, lol.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 66458
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: The real religion?
August 16, 2016 at 2:24 pm
(August 16, 2016 at 1:40 pm)SteveII Wrote: (August 16, 2016 at 1:24 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Aaaand, now we're back to Steve lowering his standards for, and playing the semantics game with words like "evidence", "proof", and "cause and effect" as a means of lubing up his precious NT before shoving it directly into our asses.
If you don't what to hear me mention the NT, then you shouldn't claim there is no evidence for God as a rebuttal to...well...just about anything. In fact there is evidence. The most an atheist can justify saying is that the evidence is not compelling--moving from positively asserting a fact "no evidence" (and not being able to defend it) to the much modest claim of "not compelling". Perhaps I underestimate all of your ability to grasp that distinction.
LOL...stahp. You made assertions, now make them true.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 3064
Threads: 3
Joined: July 10, 2016
Reputation:
37
RE: The real religion?
August 16, 2016 at 2:26 pm
(This post was last modified: August 16, 2016 at 2:28 pm by Jesster.)
(August 16, 2016 at 2:24 pm)Rhythm Wrote: (August 16, 2016 at 1:40 pm)SteveII Wrote: If you don't what to hear me mention the NT, then you shouldn't claim there is no evidence for God as a rebuttal to...well...just about anything. In fact there is evidence. The most an atheist can justify saying is that the evidence is not compelling--moving from positively asserting a fact "no evidence" (and not being able to defend it) to the much modest claim of "not compelling". Perhaps I underestimate all of your ability to grasp that distinction.
LOL...stahp. You made assertions, now make them true.
He won't bother to. He probably thinks this is all meant for him. The real benefit here is that other people can read all this later so they can see how terrible Steve's arguments are. Steve won't change his mind no matter how badly his "justifications" are torn to shreds.
![[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/C3tyaXgJM_M/maxresdefault.jpg)
I don't believe you. Get over it.
Posts: 66458
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: The real religion?
August 16, 2016 at 2:27 pm
(This post was last modified: August 16, 2016 at 2:30 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(August 16, 2016 at 2:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: 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?
Quote: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?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 27503
Threads: 520
Joined: June 16, 2015
Reputation:
90
RE: The real religion?
August 16, 2016 at 2:29 pm
(This post was last modified: August 16, 2016 at 2:31 pm by brewer.)
(August 16, 2016 at 1:14 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: (August 13, 2016 at 9:52 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Please remove your thetan from my ass.
You'll have to take more auditing classes first.
Audit schmaudit. Just stop fucking lying, stop the charade, stop peddling woo, be honest and just tell me how much fucking money you want. Oh, wait, without the bullshit why on earth would I give you money.
My bad. When is the next class?
Edit: Only christians sell you the TRUE woo.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: The real religion?
August 16, 2016 at 2:46 pm
(August 16, 2016 at 1:35 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: 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.
|
