I don't think too many believe the part about swilling poison and harassing deadly serpents.

Of course, I'm open to demonstrations of belief.

(February 7, 2018 at 4:49 pm)Cyberman Wrote:

(February 7, 2018 at 4:46 pm)SteveII Wrote: I believe the people who wrote about it.

Why?

Because the 27 books being representative of what actually happened explains the most facts. There are absolutely no other theories that explain even a majority of the facts. A lot of hand-waving and dismissing, no real theories that account for the facts. 

Additionally, I believe my personal experience and the experiences of hundreds of people I trust is evidence to the truth of the main Gospel message. I have access to thousands more who's testimony is further evidence--especially since believing my personal experience and those around me strengthens the probability that these strangers are telling the truth and not lying for some unknown reason.

Lastly, the natural world lines up with my beliefs better than with yours. At the very least, the natural world provides no indication that my beliefs are wrong.

Wow, it's rare to get the trifecta so tight.  An argument from ignorance, then an appeal to popularity, capped off with a bare assertion.  

Sounds like a hell of a "reason" to believe in fairies and magic books.

(February 7, 2018 at 5:31 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Wow, it's rare to get the trifecta so tight.  An argument from ignorance, then an appeal to popularity, capped off with a bare assertion.  

Sounds like a hell of a "reason" to believe in fairies and magic books.

It's stunning in it's fallacious beauty, isn't it?

Steve, one does not need to present a counter theory in order to say that the theory being presented is bogus.  That's classic, flawed theistic thinking at it's finest.  "Oh yeah?  Well, how do you account for it?" is an irrelevant question.

Further, putting aside the authors' intent, the actual fact is that there's absolutely 0 corroborating evidence that Jesus was supernatural.  And BS about people's hearts being changed (so what?) and the spread of the church (again, so what?) is immaterial.  It merely speaks to what people may or not find compelling (which is subjective by definition).  Also - and, remember, you had a thread in which you were eviscerated several times over this - evidence for mundane events does not lend credibility to extraordinary claims.  That some people went to some place and did some mundane thing is categorically different than saying that one of the people was legitimately magical, and did things that fly in the face of physics and biology. Things that there's no evidence of.

And, again, that so many people swallow this tripe wholesale != veracity regarding it.  Saying "I know a bunch of people who had similar experiences to me" means absolutely nothing except that you all live in the same (or similar enough) culture, one that ascribes certain things to supernatural forces for no legitimate reason outside of cultural inertia combined with wanting it to be true.  Congratulations, you're a Westerner.

(February 7, 2018 at 5:31 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Wow, it's rare to get the trifecta so tight.  An argument from ignorance, then an appeal to popularity, capped off with a bare assertion.  

Sounds like a hell of a "reason" to believe in fairies and magic books.

There's a typical Khem Peanut Gallery™ response. Just shoot out some stupid nonsense and gullible atheists will cheer you on. Especially when smarter atheists hardly ever police their own. 

Believing that the NT books are what they claimed to be is NOT an argument from ignorance. 

My personal experience and of those around me are NOT an appeal to popularity.

Responding to the question "why do I believe the NT" the way I did is NOT a bare assertion. I am answering a question posed to me. 

You seem to have struck out. Good job!

...Well, look at that. Kevin is there with his sharp critical thinking skills too--thinks you have made a good point.

(February 7, 2018 at 5:19 pm)SteveII Wrote: Lastly, the natural world lines up with my beliefs better than with yours. At the very least, the natural world provides no indication that my beliefs are wrong.

And what are my beliefs?

Your responses were so conveniently chunked into three paragraphs and my summary ordered intuitively.  One wonders how you managed to get your rebuttal so hilariously wrong, Steve. A person who was remotely interested in providing a cogent response to the question might think to themselves..."hmn, okay, how can I express my reasons in a way that isn't so farcical". Because, hey, this god shit is important..right..it's not about defending ones own idiocy, or..really... anything so paltry as that...right?

(February 7, 2018 at 5:50 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Steve, one does not need to present a counter theory in order to say that the theory being presented is bogus.  That's classic, flawed theistic thinking at it's finest.  "Oh yeah?  Well, how do you account for it?" is an irrelevant question.

You most certainly do have to have a counter theory--especially when you say things like the writers were writing things that were "bogus"? You have to have reasons to call people liars. Go ahead--what are they? 

Quote:Further, putting aside the authors' intent, the actual fact is that there's absolutely 0 corroborating evidence that Jesus was supernatural.

"Aside from the people who wrote dozens of individual documents (spanning decades) about it, we don't have any corroborating evidence". Good argument!! The fact is if there were 30 or 32 books/letters, you would say the same thing. There would never be enough because you exclude anyone who believed what they saw and then related it. You are begging the question because you assume that if a person believed it, they have little or no credibility. 

Quote: And BS about people's hearts being changed (so what?) and the spread of the church (again, so what?) is immaterial.  It merely speaks to what people may or not find compelling (which is subjective by definition).  Also - and, remember, you had a thread in which you were eviscerated several times over this - evidence for mundane events does not lend credibility to extraordinary claims.  That some people went to some place and did some mundane thing is categorically different than saying that one of the people was legitimately magical, and did things that fly in the face of physics and biology.  Things that there's no evidence of.

Not at all. Eyewitness testimony is ALL the evidence you can ever have of ANY historical event. To claim that it is not enough is special pleading. The typical response is to deny eyewitness testimony is evidence--and that is a crock of shit to go along with your bowl of special pleading. 

Quote:And, again, that so many people swallow this tripe wholesale != veracity regarding it.  Saying "I know a bunch of people who had similar experiences to me" means absolutely nothing except that you all live in the same (or similar enough) culture, one that ascribes certain things to supernatural forces for no legitimate reason outside of cultural inertia combined with wanting it to be true.  Congratulations, you're a Westerner.

Not so. I listened to a person that came to my church last month from Iran that said he and members of his family (at a massive cost to them) became Christians because Jesus appeared to them (at different times) in a dream and they separately sought out underground Christian groups. Cultural influence? I think not. Go ahead--why should I assume he is lying about his experiences?

---

(February 7, 2018 at 6:01 pm)Cyberman Wrote:

(February 7, 2018 at 5:19 pm)SteveII Wrote: Lastly, the natural world lines up with my beliefs better than with yours. At the very least, the natural world provides no indication that my beliefs are wrong.

And what are my beliefs?

The typical atheist believes that God did not create the world ex nihilo and all that there is is a result of time and chance.

One wonders how a believer squares the circle on that one?  If their beliefs "lined up" better than some atheists beliefs as regards the natural world...what's the point of invoking the supernatural?

In any case, I guess I'm not a "typical atheist", since I could only sign my name to the first part of that. I wonder how many atheists think that "time and chance" account for everything?