Quote:a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed.

Only an idiot jesus freak could ignore the fact that there are two different time periods claimed, before 4 BC and during or after 6 AD.

And they wonder why we laugh at their bullshit when they can't even get their story straight.

(September 16, 2017 at 1:45 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed.

Only an idiot jesus freak could ignore the fact that there are two different time periods claimed, before 4 BC and during or after 6 AD.

And they wonder why we laugh at their bullshit when they can't even get their story straight.

[Believer]: We have good reason to believe the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony.

[Skeptic]: But we have completely conflicting and irreconcilable dates for Jesus' birth. Which one is correct?

[Believer]: Yes.

[Skeptic]: Wait. What?

[Believer]: We have good reason to believe the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony.

(September 16, 2017 at 1:45 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed.

Only an idiot jesus freak could ignore the fact that there are two different time periods claimed, before 4 BC and during or after 6 AD.

And they wonder why we laugh at their bullshit when they can't even get their story straight.

and then having a Holy tome, frequently represented as Inerrant (and it is certainly plausible insinuating it isn't by the Faithful is heretical or worse) that nevertheless attests the main event as occurring twice, once each on consecutive days, shouldn't that raise some eyebrows ??

And then we (those of us outside of 'inner circle') find out amongst theologians and bible study experts the double crucifixion 'difficulty' is common knowledge (!!!) but it seems they never get around to mentioning it to the pew warmers for fear of spooking them or worse, impacting the collection plate.

So, we have a critically flawed book and it's being protected by some poohbahs with damn little interest in spreading the inconvenient truth, instead, they're vested in maintaining the status quo lest they need to find honest work.

(September 15, 2017 at 5:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 15, 2017 at 4:13 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Undoubtedly, huh?  I wonder why it is then, that this picture has not been named by the modern scientific community as conclusive evidence of supernatural.

Because maybe the scientific community is too busy praising Satan...  

That's what opening ceremonies are like.

Heres the 2012 London Olympic one. It among other things celebrates our socialist NHS (the horror)

(September 15, 2017 at 9:37 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: In view of the actual evidence for Mormonism, (and the special pleading required for all the rest) perhaps we need to have a special category for members on this site coming from a Mormon background ??

Perhaps a credential of sorts might be included in their avatar box advising their religious postings are demonstrably less specious than the rest and that their posts here will enjoy  a heightened level of protection by staff in regards to challenges from other religionites ??

We specifically are not acknowledging Mormonism as "The One True Faith", but they are clearly a cut above the folderol we are seeing here from the rest of the God crowd.

Well we could always make their avatar a picture of magic underpants.

The OP uses the definition for evidence, " Facts that support a conclusion", therefore testimony cannot be evidence until it is established as fact. Right?

(September 16, 2017 at 6:51 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: The OP uses the definition for evidence, " Facts that support a conclusion", therefore testimony cannot be evidence until it is established as fact. Right?

The fact is that the testimony exists. Whether the claims of the testimony are facts is a whole different question not related to special pleading.

---

(September 16, 2017 at 12:49 am)Khemikal Wrote: In a thread about christian evidence and special pleading..you tell us that your religious rationalization is based on opinions.  Not fact, fact, therefore fact...........as you put it.

It's not as if every religious nutball somewhere is strongly of the opinion that his religion is true or anything.  

As usual, you mischaracterized my statements on purpose. I said that what the facts conclude is a matter of opinion.

Doesn't matter how much christian testimony there is if it's all indistinguishable from what could have been imagined instead.

(September 16, 2017 at 7:44 am)Mathilda Wrote: Doesn't matter how much christian testimony there is if it's all indistinguishable from what could have been imagined instead.

That's a contradiction. Reason dictates the more Christian testimony the more reasonable to believe it reflects reality.

(September 16, 2017 at 7:52 am)SteveII Wrote:

(September 16, 2017 at 7:44 am)Mathilda Wrote: Doesn't matter how much christian testimony there is if it's all indistinguishable from what could have been imagined instead.

That's a contradiction. Reason dictates the more Christian testimony the more reasonable to believe it reflects reality.

Nope. That's why asset bubbles are a feature of the economic system. The majority of people can clearly be wrong about very important things.

All it tells us is that there are a lot of people who believe the same thing, not whether they imagined it or not.