(September 11, 2017 at 5:27 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Wait.  I'd like to add to expand on my previous post as I am thinking back on Steve's threads.

First, he tried to argue that extraordinary claims shouldn't need extraordinary evidence to be reasonably accepted.  When that approach failed, he then tried arguing that the crappy non-evidence for his extraordinary claims is actually good, reliable evidence.  After that one sank, now he's here saying that at least his religion has more crappy non-evidence than everybody else, as though bad evidence in high enough quantities somehow magically transforms itself into good evidence.  Awesome.

/thread

(September 11, 2017 at 5:12 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 3:47 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Just as I thought...

It's funny how you guys shut up the moment anything resembling evidence is is actually produced...

Since you refuse to respond, you forfeit the privilege of requesting that any theist produce  evidence from now on.

Maybe we're just dumbstruck that anyone would seriously think this sort of thing could be persuasive to anyone who hadn't already imbibed plenty of the Koolade.

The point isn't to persuade, it's to start a conversation. You guys repeatedly ask for evidence because you think none exists, You're clearly not equipped to deal with any modicum of evidence that's presented other than deflection.

I've also posted evidence that was tested extensively, and it funny how quick you guys turn on science when it doesn't support your world view.

(September 11, 2017 at 5:27 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Wait.  I'd like to add to expand on my previous post as I am thinking back on Steve's threads.

First, he tried to argue that extraordinary claims shouldn't need extraordinary evidence to be reasonably accepted.  When that approach failed, he then tried arguing that the crappy non-evidence for his extraordinary claims is actually good, reliable evidence.  After that one sank, now he's here saying that at least his religion has more crappy non-evidence than everybody else, as though bad evidence in high enough quantities somehow magically transforms itself into good evidence.  Awesome.

It's a miracle.

Goddammn, I lose my atheist stripes, and we have to pay for them..

(September 11, 2017 at 5:16 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Wait... why is Huggy ASSuming that Hickey suffered from something like Müllerian agenesis?  Nothing in either video mentions it.  All either mention is an inherited condition.

Huggy, there are other causes of infertility than a missing uterus.  Here's a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_inf...y_location

Now, please provide proof that Hickey actually had any of these conditions, and that the doctor(s) didn't misdiagnose.

I cant think of any other condition that would cause a doctor to state that conception is an impossibility...

(September 11, 2017 at 5:34 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 5:16 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Wait... why is Huggy ASSuming that Hickey suffered from something like Müllerian agenesis?  Nothing in either video mentions it.  All either mention is an inherited condition.

Huggy, there are other causes of infertility than a missing uterus.  Here's a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_inf...y_location

Now, please provide proof that Hickey actually had any of these conditions, and that the doctor(s) didn't misdiagnose.

I cant think of any other condition that would cause a doctor to state that conception is an impossibility...

That is what we call an argument from ignorance. You not being able to conceive of an answer, doesn't mean a supernatural explanation is valid

Huggy74 Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:I noticed you missed the threads on the value of testimony.

Except it's testimony corroborated with an audio recording...

I like how you guys ignore the fact that Marilyn testifies to seeing a supernatural entity, while on the audio recording Branham states, and I quote "between you and I stands that light"..

Are you saying that if people make a recording of their testimony, their testimony is more likely to be true? If not, what's your point? We're not doubting that they testified. We're doubting that their testimony is true. What difference does it make whether they recorded it or typed it?

(September 11, 2017 at 5:34 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 5:16 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Wait... why is Huggy ASSuming that Hickey suffered from something like Müllerian agenesis?  Nothing in either video mentions it.  All either mention is an inherited condition.

Huggy, there are other causes of infertility than a missing uterus.  Here's a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_inf...y_location

Now, please provide proof that Hickey actually had any of these conditions, and that the doctor(s) didn't misdiagnose.

I cant think of any other condition that would cause a doctor to state that conception is an impossibility...

So, I'm supposed to accept your assertion borne from ignorance?

L-O-FUCKING-L

(September 11, 2017 at 5:20 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 5:16 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: I like how you guys ignore the fact that Travis Walton (and several others) testify to seeing aliens, while on the audio (various recordings and polygraph tests) recording Walton states, and I quote "the aliens took me up into their ship".. (I'm paraphrasing)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Wal...O_incident


There, do you know accept that aliens have visited Earth, abducted humans, and then sent them back to Earth with their memories partially erased?

There was an old (as in years ago) thread where Huggy posted a video of some street preacher wannabe guy "summoning" angel UFOs upon command.  It was basically just him and a buddy screwing people over with a balloon or two.

So, the answer is yes.

Misrepresent much?

One problem with this entire thread is that comparing Christianity to some other religions isn't an apple-to-apple comparison. Take Buddhism, for example. One could argue that Buddhism might be 'true' in some sense without Siddhartha Gautama ever having existed. We could posit, for the sake of argument, that he is an entirely legendary character, and this claim would in no way speak to the truth or falsehood of the teachings and practice attributed to him. You simply can't do that with Christianity without undercutting the foundations of the movement, which is based on allegedly historical events that fulfilled certain prophesies.

So for purposes of this conversation, are the Buddhist writings (or the writings of Hindu mystics) -- which dwarf the Bible -- to be considered as evidence for the claims made by those religions? I can't speak much to the question of Hindu scripture, but in the case of the Buddhist writings, we have "first hand" testimony of the efficacy of Buddha's teachings and practice by adherents who submitted themselves to the discipline and found enlightenment. It shouldn't matter that much of it was written centuries after Siddhartha allegedly lived, since Buddhism doesn't stand or fall with historical claims or even the actual existence of one man. It's the teachings and practice that matter.

(September 11, 2017 at 5:37 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 5:20 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: There was an old (as in years ago) thread where Huggy posted a video of some street preacher wannabe guy "summoning" angel UFOs upon command.  It was basically just him and a buddy screwing people over with a balloon or two.

So, the answer is yes.

Misrepresent much?

If you believe that yahoo summons UFOs, do you think this video makes it any better/more probable?