(September 16, 2017 at 11:23 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/inv...six-steps/

So your "basis of evidence" for christianity is a bunch of false suppositions and faked evidence by a former cop who, if he used those tactics in his original job, would have been fired as a disgrace to his uniform. Yeah, your ability to disprove your case is without parallel, and yet you'll still shout discrimination against us when we rightly deny your baseless and unevidenced assertions.

Richard Carrier already ripped Wallace a new asshole . Pointing out he sucks as a detective . No wonder he's not employed as such any longer.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11686

(September 17, 2017 at 12:08 am)Astreja Wrote:

(September 16, 2017 at 10:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: That last sentence, the reasoning is significanlty flawed. You want me, a person clearly of the natural world to produce a supernatural cause. That isn't even a logical possibility.

So you don't believe John 14:12?  

Two problems with that. First, Jesus was talking to his disciples, second, it is very clear that Jesus would be the supernatural cause of any effect.

(September 17, 2017 at 7:47 am)SteveII Wrote:

(September 17, 2017 at 12:08 am)Astreja Wrote: So you don't believe John 14:12?  

Two problems with that. First, Jesus was talking to his disciples, second, it is very clear that Jesus would be the supernatural cause of any effect.

I'm pretty sure Astreja understands that the alleged source of this power is Jesus/God. After all, the woman can read. So let's set aside that "problem".

The real problem is that now apparently "disciple" only refers to those Jesus directly spoke to. So you're not a disciple of Christ. Lol. Got it. However, I'm betting that this distinction of yours only applies to those cases in which accepting the plain meaning of his words as applying to you only comes up when doing so would prove uncomfortable or embarrassing and that you are a disciple in good standing when there is nothing potentially falsifiable on the table.

How many of Jesus' other utterances don't apply to you?

#howasophistbuildsatarbaby

(September 16, 2017 at 10:15 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:Aggregated population  trends

Bullshit apologist speak

Is there any other kind?

(September 17, 2017 at 1:41 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(September 16, 2017 at 10:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: Testimony is an assertion of fact. If you believe the person you accept the content of the testimony as fact. If you accept someone's testimony as fact, you have evidence to support a conclusion. Notice none of these steps are considered proof.

I said that last statement because some people here think testimony is not evidence in any situation.

---

Yes it is an assertion of fact, not an actual fact, in order for it to be fact it would need to be verified. So Testimony absent verification cannot be fact, therefore it cannot be evidence, since you defined evidence as "facts that support a conclusion". 

If your just going to let people assert their own "facts" without verification, you put yourself in a position in which you can't determine what is actually true. Your actually a walking example of special pleading because you accept these unverified claims of Christianity as fact, but you don't apply that same standard to the claims of the various religions.

Multiple assertions of the same fact is verification. We know a large number of people believed the same as the assertions (not because of them) -more verification.

You can't simply claim special pleading. Illustrate how there are similar circumstances in some other religion. Back up your argument.

(September 17, 2017 at 11:21 am)SteveII Wrote:

(September 17, 2017 at 1:41 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: Yes it is an assertion of fact, not an actual fact, in order for it to be fact it would need to be verified. So Testimony absent verification cannot be fact, therefore it cannot be evidence, since you defined evidence as "facts that support a conclusion". 

If your just going to let people assert their own "facts" without verification, you put yourself in a position in which you can't determine what is actually true. Your actually a walking example of special pleading because you accept these unverified claims of Christianity as fact, but you don't apply that same standard to the claims of the various religions.

Multiple assertions of the same fact is verification. We know a large number of people believed the same as the assertions (not because of them) -more verification.

You can't simply claim special pleading.  Illustrate how there are similar circumstances in some other religion. Back up your argument.

I guess it's easier to ignore me and shift the burden of proof, rather than actually clarify and support your position like I asked you to do, right, Steve?

Quote:You can't simply claim special pleading. Illustrate how there are similar circumstances in some other religion. Back up your argument.

A billion muslims think mohammed was real.  A billion xristards think jesus was real.  There is no evidence for either as the beliefs of shitheads does not constitute evidence.

As a matter of fact is is the well-known fallacy:

Quote:The ad populum fallacy is the appeal to the popularity of a claim as a reason for accepting it.

The number of people who believe a claim is irrelevant to its truth. Fifty million people can be wrong. In fact, millions of people have been wrong about many things: that the Earth is flat and motionless, for example, and that the stars are lights shining through holes in the sky.

The ad populum fallacy is also referred to as the bandwagon fallacy, the appeal to the mob, the democratic fallacy, and the appeal to popularity.

In fact, a billion asswipes believing something without evidence virtually guarantees it is bullshit.

(September 17, 2017 at 11:21 am)SteveII Wrote: Multiple assertions of the same fact is verification. 

Multiple assertions of the same claim absent any corroborating evidence is just that -- assertion. That doesn't get you to 'fact'.

Every mark who ever got taken by two or more con artists was given multiple assertions of the same "facts". However, I doubt in retrospect any of them would acknowledge the truth of the claims they were sold. Only that they were gullible in believing.

I love that point in a theist's thread when all their convoluted apologist scaffolding begins to collapse in on itself. It's just so...tasty.