(September 11, 2017 at 4:12 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 4:03 pm)JackRussell Wrote: Well you are immersed in the evidence you contends attests to your belief. How deep are you prepared and exposed to the apologetics of all other beliefs? Can you honestly say you are up to speed with all of that? I know plenty of Christians that have become Muslims over here.

Propaganda and evidence are not equal. Even if I was a theist, I would think one contender would really be well evidenced. Why don't your fellow theist of many and differing strikes disagree? Atheism is irrelevant here if a real God knows his shit.

There is very little to investigate in other religions. If you don't agree, give an example.

---

(September 11, 2017 at 4:05 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I have never seen any evidence or information that provides any substantive evidence that corroborates the claims central to Christianity.

The comparable arguments that are given as evidence (but are not) would be things like the ontological argument. If it can be used to "prove" any other god claim, then it does not prove any god.

You are right that the natural theology arguments could be used for any other monotheism. However, we have a whole body of evidence in and surrounding the NT to consider that is not generic and has no equal in other religions.

Incorrect. You have a whole additional set of claims with the same paucity of evidence. It's all the same bible there buddy

Quote:Is there any debate that no major religion that has a fraction of the amount of evidence of Christianity to even examine in support of its main claims?

What, exactly, do you think you have?  Because I'm sure you are overvaluing pious drivel.

(September 11, 2017 at 4:03 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 3:21 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: bold mine

Um...........what? How do you even measure this? By word count? By number of supposed authors? By amount of publication?

An argument for belief based on quantity alone? Really? 

This might be one of the worst propositions you've put forward for your delusion.

What evidence would you expect to see from events that happened in the first century? Writings. The more the better. The more names we know the better. The more immediate effects these writings had the better. The more people that believed the events even before the writings the better (for example, Paul addresses the already existing churches throughout the Roman empire in the very first surviving writings).
So yes. Quantity of the only evidence we should expect to survive (writings) is an important factor.

OK, lets go with the quantity thing for now (even if it's poor quantity). Why the limit to the first century? What is your evidence that christianity has more quantity over any other religion/deity from any time in history? Do you have specific numbers or is this just your prejudiced opinion? And what exactly qualifies something to fit into your "quantity" category?

(September 11, 2017 at 3:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 3:08 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Here's the biggest problem with your gawd claims. You have no eyewitness testimony.

Eye witness testimony




Audio recording of the actual event

Go ahead and search YouTube for "miracle Islam healing" or similar words.

There are many claimed healing miracles credited to Allah.

Do you accept them as being Islamic healing miracles? If not, why should we accept your claims of Christian healing miracles?

Special pleading much?

Here's another question. Lets say that someone prays to your god for a healing miracle, and it occurs. How do you go about proving it was actually your god that is responsible for the miracle?

Here, I presume, is a main tenet of jesusism.  What evidence exists for it?

Quote:There is no possibility whatsoever of reconciling science and theology, at least in Christendom. Either Jesus arose from the dead or He didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if He did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

H. L. Mencken

(September 11, 2017 at 4:12 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 4:03 pm)JackRussell Wrote: Well you are immersed in the evidence you contends attests to your belief. How deep are you prepared and exposed to the apologetics of all other beliefs? Can you honestly say you are up to speed with all of that? I know plenty of Christians that have become Muslims over here.

Propaganda and evidence are not equal. Even if I was a theist, I would think one contender would really be well evidenced. Why don't your fellow theist of many and differing strikes disagree? Atheism is irrelevant here if a real God knows his shit.

There is very little to investigate in other religions. If you don't agree, give an example.

I think they are all shit. Mormonism(fellow Xtians), Scientology, Islam, Bahai, Wicca, whatever...

It's your shit, they all claim success, I think they all suck and so does yours.

Have you fully investigated all of them, like you expect me to investigate your claims.......

Don't lie, none of us can

I have lived as a Jew, could never claim to understand all the rest

All we can do is parse their claims.

You have never walked a mile in their shoes, and neither have i.

You don't know if they're right and neither do I.

I have no reason to trust any of you. And if you say you have totally examined all of their claims, I call BULLSHIT.

You are invested in Xtianity, I am in invested in doubt.

I don't claim to know what's true, you do.

Go elsewhere and win the God truth war with your theistic compadres, you get an even pass here because few other religionists come here. Take that fight up with them. Then tell your real God to talk to us. Always listening, silence enduring..........

(September 11, 2017 at 4:16 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 4:12 pm)SteveII Wrote: There is very little to investigate in other religions. If you don't agree, give an example.

---

You are right that the natural theology arguments could be used for any other monotheism. However, we have a whole body of evidence in and surrounding the NT to consider that is not generic and has no equal in other religions.

Incorrect. You have a whole additional set of claims with the same paucity of evidence. It's all the same bible there buddy

It does not matter if you don't find the evidence compelling. The point was and is that many of you atheist lump all religions together and claim that Christians are not logical/consistent in dismissing other religions. I say all religions are not equally evidenced so such a charge is baseless.

(September 11, 2017 at 4:27 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 4:16 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Incorrect. You have a whole additional set of claims with the same paucity of evidence. It's all the same bible there buddy

It does not matter if you don't find the evidence compelling. The point was and is that many of you atheist lump all religions together and claim that Christians are not logical/consistent in dismissing other religions. I say all religions are not equally evidenced so such a charge is baseless.

It's not evidence. Calling it "evidence" and then dancing about saying that we don't accept "evidence" is blatantly dishonest.

(September 11, 2017 at 4:19 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 4:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: What evidence would you expect to see from events that happened in the first century? Writings. The more the better. The more names we know the better. The more immediate effects these writings had the better. The more people that believed the events even before the writings the better (for example, Paul addresses the already existing churches throughout the Roman empire in the very first surviving writings).
So yes. Quantity of the only evidence we should expect to survive (writings) is an important factor.

OK, lets go with the quantity thing for now (even if it's poor quantity). Why the limit to the first century? What is your evidence that christianity has more quantity over any other religion/deity from any time in history? Do you have specific numbers or is this just your prejudiced opinion? And what exactly qualifies something to fit into your "quantity" category?

Name another religions with evidence we can compare over any time span you want. Without a comparison, we would be left with just a litany of beliefs going way back that don't add anything to the discussion.

(September 11, 2017 at 4:32 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 4:19 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: OK, lets go with the quantity thing for now (even if it's poor quantity). Why the limit to the first century? What is your evidence that christianity has more quantity over any other religion/deity from any time in history? Do you have specific numbers or is this just your prejudiced opinion? And what exactly qualifies something to fit into your "quantity" category?

Name another religions with evidence we can compare over any time span you want. Without a comparison, we would be left with just a litany of beliefs going way back that don't add anything to the discussion.

Mormonism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhist, etc