(April 9, 2013 at 10:49 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Which means you will not consider anything that does not conform to your physical reduction bias.

Not true at all. I'll accept your claims once you demonstrate them to be true. What you want is for me to accept hearsay, uncorroborated testimony, and 'evidence' which is indistinguishable in every way from invented tales.

(April 9, 2013 at 8:44 pm)Ryantology Wrote: I was an atheist for many many years before I became a Christian. Your one-upsmanship has missed its target.

What did your parents raise you to be?

(April 10, 2013 at 12:21 pm)Tex Wrote: What is the verifiable physical evidence that leads you to believe that you should only believe what can be supported by verifiable physical evidence?

Do you trap your dinner like that, cowboy?

Again, I'll accept supernatural explanations if and only if the supernatural is conclusively demonstrated to exist. I do not believe in anything which is impossible to verify outside of my own experience because to do otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

"Again, I'll accept supernatural explanations if and only if the supernatural is conclusively demonstrated to exist. I do not believe in anything which is impossible to verify outside of my own experience because to do otherwise is intellectually dishonest."

This is can agree with on the condition that I am allowed to put trust in someone else who did the same work I would have done. For example, I know nothing of archeology. However, I can go read about it. I don't have to visit all those places to believe what I read. I just know it isn't ridiculous and matches everything else I know, so it's good for now.

(April 10, 2013 at 1:39 pm)Tex Wrote: "Again, I'll accept supernatural explanations if and only if the supernatural is conclusively demonstrated to exist. I do not believe in anything which is impossible to verify outside of my own experience because to do otherwise is intellectually dishonest."

This is can agree with on the condition that I am allowed to put trust in someone else who did the same work I would have done. For example, I know nothing of archeology. However, I can go read about it. I don't have to visit all those places to believe what I read. I just know it isn't ridiculous and matches everything else I know, so it's good for now.

Reading an archeologist (or few), who also believe(s) like you, isn't - in any way - sufficient to justify belief in the supernatural (this is why, elsewhere, we've said your standard of evidence is way too, hypocritically, low). Textual accounts of the miraculous, whether from yesterday, yesteryear, or 2000+ years ago are also not sufficient to establish that a violation of known physics occurred. Claimed supernatural events are extraordinary claims. They require MORE than just textual "I said so" hearsay accounts - not less (Read your bible! Mark 16, John 14, John 10). They are not sufficient to establish that ANY extraordinary phenomena occurred. Would you accept, "on faith", my personal 'testimony' (in written form) that I have a pet fire-breathing dragon? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Again, your standard of evidence is extremely low (and hypocritical because you want to smuggle in your presumed and interpreted religion, but push out the rest). You have a double standard problem, a spin problem, and a gullibility problem.

Median Wrote:Reading an archeologist (or few), who also believe(s) like you, isn't - in any way - sufficient to justify belief in the supernatural (this is why, elsewhere, we've said your standard of evidence is way too, hypocritically, low). Textual accounts of the miraculous, whether from yesterday, yesteryear, or 2000+ years ago are also not sufficient to establish that a violation of known physics occurred. Claimed supernatural events are extraordinary claims. They require MORE than just textual "I said so" hearsay accounts - not less (Read your bible! Mark 16, John 14, John 10). They are not sufficient to establish that ANY extraordinary phenomena occurred. Would you accept, "on faith", my personal 'testimony' (in written form) that I have a pet fire-breathing dragon? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Again, your standard of evidence is extremely low (and hypocritical because you want to smuggle in your presumed and interpreted religion, but push out the rest). You have a double standard problem, a spin problem, and a gullibility problem.

I mentioned nothing about the supernatural or Jesus or dragons or faeries or any thing else. I was thinking more on the lines of Mayans and Incas.

(April 10, 2013 at 1:59 pm)Tex Wrote: I mentioned nothing about the supernatural or Jesus or dragons or faeries or any thing else. I was thinking more on the lines of Mayans and Incas.

Lies. In your own words "God is "Existence"". So "God" (whatever that means) is not supernatural?? Now, could you get anymore incoherent? "Blark Schmarbelfarben is existence" WOW. No, claims to the supernatural (whatever their source) are not substantiated by textual accounts (Mayan or otherwise). Do we really have to go into what it means to be credulous or gullible? This is the weakest form of obfuscation I've seen. Why can't you people just be honest and admit that you can't demonstrate the deity you say you believe in? Is it really that difficult and painful for you? Why not just come right out and say it? You believe in an unfalsifiable "something" deity "thing" for which you can neither coherently define, point to, identify, or demonstrate.

@Tex

No one on AF has ever before called me either a liar or an asshole. Apparently, median is just another belligerent blowhard. He has nothing useful to offer the conversation. The thread was soiled the minute he first posted. He's a good candidate for the ignore list.

@Chady-kinz

I'll give him a little bit more before I lump him with Rhythm, although the resemblance is striking.

@median

You're going to have to believe me that I was thinking about Mayans and Incas. I don't think I have to independently go there and investigate. I don't have to independently experience anesthesia to know what it is like. I don't have to mix water and magnesium and watch the reaction to know what happens. I don't have to break in mustard gas to know it's poisonous. A reasonable way to be taught is by someone telling you. They have to provide backup, of course, but I don't have to witness the experiments myself, build my own instruments, or anything crazy.

(April 10, 2013 at 3:38 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: @Tex

No one on AF has ever before called me either a liar or an asshole. Apparently, median is just another belligerent blowhard. He has nothing useful to offer the conversation. The thread was soiled the minute he first posted. He's a good candidate for the ignore list.

HAHA. So apparently then, "nothing useful" means anything that disagrees with your credulous warrantless assertions about a "supernatural cause" that is (somehow) not a God, deity, or disembodied mind?

I'm not here to make buddy-buddy with you. I'm here to see whether you theist apologists can meet the challenges that have been set before you. And apparently you cannot, since all that you have presented is either obfuscation or crying.

---

(April 10, 2013 at 4:08 pm)Tex Wrote: @median

You're going to have to believe me that I was thinking about Mayans and Incas. I don't think I have to independently go there and investigate. I don't have to independently experience anesthesia to know what it is like. I don't have to mix water and magnesium and watch the reaction to know what happens. I don't have to break in mustard gas to know it's poisonous. A reasonable way to be taught is by someone telling you. They have to provide backup, of course, but I don't have to witness the experiments myself, build my own instruments, or anything crazy.

Did you completely miss the post? Your examples commit the fallacy of false analogy. Absolutely ZERO of those things (anesthesia, water, magnesium, mustard gas, etc) are supernatural or extraordinary claims. They are quite common and can be DEMONSTRATED with little or no equivocation, and can be used (quite effectively) for making testable, repeatable, falsifiable, predictions. Can you demonstrate your alleged deity unequivocally (in the same exact fashion that you can demonstrate salt dissolving in water)? Someone just telling you about an alleged pet fire-breathing unicorn dragon is far removed from a claim to salt dissolving in water. It really sounds like you are willing to believe whatever tickles your ears and makes you feel comfortable. Do you believe everything you hear?

(April 9, 2013 at 6:04 pm)Godschild Wrote: @ median and Ryan, Let's say I see a man stabbed and run to his aide, then the assailant stabs me leaves behind the knife and flees. Then a person comes along and finds us, the man I saw stabbed is dead and I'm dying. The person who finds us calls 911, the police arrive and ask me what happens, I tell them the name of the person who stabbed us, I tell them I've known him for years and he was a very unstable individual, I then die. This man is convicted on my dying testimony, why, I proved nothing, demonstrated nothing, for all anyone knows I stabbed the man, then he took the knife from me and stabbed me. Maybe I did not like the man I named and wanted revenge. Yet my dying testimony was all it took to convict this person, no proof he was even there other than what I said.
Why would you as a juror accept this? Even though I told the truth there is no demonstrable proof I did, so why is this man in jail.

No I would not accept that as enough evidence to convict.

It would make the police search for evidence that supported your though.

As you yourself pointed out there are a number of different scenerios that could have led to the deaths.

Don't go lumpin people all up in mah shit. I like my space (and maybe folks don't want to be in here with me - in your no-no zone).