I can't wait to use some of these arguments to get out of Jury duty.

Expert witness... What you want me to accept what you say, without any evidence.... I've never seen anyone killed by a gun before, to demonstrate it is possible.
Video of the crime.... sorry, but if I was to accept that video as evidence, then I would also have to accept GhostBusters (the excellent original of course) as evidence for the paranormal. Why you ask... because stuff.... lalalalala.

Hopefully they let me leave under my own volition

It's also amusing to me, that people are asking for evidence over the internet, and then deny any type of evidence, that could possibly be presented over the internet.

The courts are not on your side, RoadRunner. At least in the United States, we've tossed out the use of your spectral evidence.

I accept evidence when it has some substance. Just calling it evidence does not make it so.

(August 16, 2016 at 9:05 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I can't wait to use some of these arguments to get out of Jury duty.

Expert witness... What you want me to accept what you say, without any evidence.... I've never seen anyone killed by a gun before, to demonstrate it is possible.
Video of the crime.... sorry, but if I was to accept that video as evidence, then I would also have to accept GhostBusters (the excellent original of course) as evidence for the paranormal. Why you ask... because stuff.... lalalalala.

Hopefully they let me leave under my own volition

This is such a poorly drawn analogy that I don't even know where to begin, RR.

(August 16, 2016 at 9:08 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It's also amusing to me, that people are asking for evidence over the internet, and then deny any type of evidence, that could possibly be presented over the internet.

Umm...you know you have access to original scientific research on almost any subject you can think of with just a few clicks in Google Scholar, right?

(August 16, 2016 at 9:10 pm)Jesster Wrote: The courts are not on your side, RoadRunner. At least in the United States, we've tossed out the use of your spectral evidence.

I accept evidence when it has some substance. Just calling it evidence does not make it so.

It seems that many here, accept evidence based on what it say's... which just seems backwards to me!

Look at the evidence for evolution....
I don't believe in evolution... you have no evidence.
Look at all these reports, of a cow, that was born who could breathe under water.
They must be lying crazy or delusional.... Cow's cant breather under water. You have not evidence.
Scientist's are studying it, and starting to breed more
They are obviously biased, and in on the conspiracy to gain power through the fairy tale of evolution.

Dafuq?!

RR, if we discovered a cow that could breath under water you would literally be DROWNING in scientific data as researchers stampeded each other to study the damn thing. How is this anything like your old book? Where is the scientific data supporting the ridiculous claims in your damn book?

You aren't making any sense, or I'm tired, or both.

(August 16, 2016 at 9:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 16, 2016 at 9:10 pm)Jesster Wrote: The courts are not on your side, RoadRunner. At least in the United States, we've tossed out the use of your spectral evidence.

I accept evidence when it has some substance. Just calling it evidence does not make it so.

It seems that many here, accept evidence based on what it say's... which just seems backwards to me!

Look at the evidence for evolution....
    I don't believe in evolution... you have no evidence.
Look at all these reports, of a cow, that was born who could breathe under water.
    They must be lying crazy or delusional.... Cow's cant breather under water.   You have not evidence.
Scientist's are studying it, and starting to breed more
    They are obviously biased, and in on the conspiracy to gain power through the fairy tale of evolution.

You were arguing with a straw man before and you still are now. Argue against the actual points being made instead.

What we haven't been accepting as evidence for the things said in the bible is the bible itself. The source of the claim is not evidence for the claim.

If you want evidence for anything you are deciding to mock from your personal opinion, LadyForCamus has already pointed you where you need to go for that. Actual studies go into science. Journals are written where anyone else can follow the research and do the tests themselves. There's not just a "Ye Olde Book of Science" that is comparable to the bible.

(August 16, 2016 at 9:08 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It's also amusing to me, that people are asking for evidence over the internet, and then deny any type of evidence, that could possibly be presented over the internet.

We're not denying anything.  What we're saying is that there needs to be something that corroborates the claim.

Appeals to popularity and tradition don't fit the bill.  That a religion formed due to a particular prophet's rise and fall doesn't speak to the truth of his divine nature.  Again, these people had a vested interest in keeping their cult going.  Whether it was because they were true believers, people who simply recognized the practical benefits of starting and keeping a revolution going, or some combination thereof doesn't really matter.*

Keep in mind, this happens every time Steve gets cornered.  He regurgitates WLC and Plantinga, then when that fails he falls back to the tired "These guys wouldn't perpetuate a lie (why not?) and look at how many people believe, and believed back then (so what?), and why don't you disprove this unfalsifiable thing (utterly illogical)?"

I mean, for all the shit Randy got (and deservedly so), he at least attempted to bring documents other than the NT and philosophical masturbation to the party.  

*Note that I accept that there's an incredibly remote chance that Jesus actually is the real messiah and performed a myriad of miracles.  The thing is, as a skeptic, I need to weigh that possibility against what I know of reality.  And what I know is that people don't come back to life after being dead for a few days.  They cannot heal others simply by laying hands upon them and demanding that the illness (or devil) leave.  They cannot walk upon water, nor alter/add to its chemical makeup simply on a whim.  And I cannot take the accounts of people trying to create/market a religion who say such things actually happened at face value.  And no, these impossible things aren't credible because of their impossibleness.

I await something convincing.  So far I've merely seen semantics and fallacies.

(August 16, 2016 at 9:27 pm)Jesster Wrote:

---

(August 16, 2016 at 9:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It seems that many here, accept evidence based on what it say's... which just seems backwards to me!

Look at the evidence for evolution....
    I don't believe in evolution... you have no evidence.
Look at all these reports, of a cow, that was born who could breathe under water.
    They must be lying crazy or delusional.... Cow's cant breather under water.   You have not evidence.
Scientist's are studying it, and starting to breed more
    They are obviously biased, and in on the conspiracy to gain power through the fairy tale of evolution.

---

You were arguing with a straw man before and you still are now. Argue against the actual points being made instead.

I wasn't making an argument.... I was applying the points being made.

Quote:What we haven't been accepting as evidence for the things said in the bible is the bible itself. The source of the claim is not evidence for the claim.

Exactly why the video and expert testimony in my court example are not evidence. Do you think it odd, that evidence is rarely presented in court?

Quote:If you want evidence for anything you are deciding to mock from your personal opinion, LadyForCamus has already pointed you where you need to go for that. Actual studies go into science. Journals are written where anyone else can follow the research and do the tests themselves. There's not just a "Ye Olde Book of Science" that is comparable to the bible.

Actually, there is a reproducibility problem in science (which I've posted before from the journal Nature). Either it is not reproduced at all, or attempts to reproduce it fail in an alarming number of circumstances across all fields of science. And some sciences are not reproducible by their nature If we can't test them for ourselves then what?... However if your argument, is that the Bible is not science (neener, neener). Then I agree. But, what is your point?

Do you think that some claims of the Bible where public enough to be tested at the time they where written? How did the message fair, in places where people where present, and could refute or verify what was being claimed? Did the disciples act as if what they where claiming was true?