Here, I'll play:

(June 7, 2015 at 11:00 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Why is what the authors of the gospels wrote about the things they saw any less credible than the things you wrote about (highlighted above for clarity)?

Because unlike our experiences, they aren't verifiable.

(June 7, 2015 at 11:00 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Alternatively, why should we give you the benefit of the doubt - and take you at your word - but not do the same with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Because if push comes to shove, you could get hold of the Reserve records for his branch of service and verify his service -- including his presence in combat -- from their records. You could also find his squad-mates and interview them.

(June 7, 2015 at 11:00 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Can you explain what makes YOUR write up of YOUR personal experiences more believable than theirs?

Because claiming to have been in combat -- or in my case, to have gone into the danger of a working fire -- is much more believable than claiming to have been the son of God.

I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit a better argument than this one that you're mounting, Pigeon.

(June 7, 2015 at 11:00 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Alternatively, why should we give you the benefit of the doubt - and take you at your word - but not do the same with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

So what you are saying is, that the stories of Zeus, Hercules, Gilgamesh, Ra, Anubis, Marduk, An, Enlil, etc. (I can list hundreds more if necessary) are also true.

(June 7, 2015 at 2:26 am)Kitty Galore Wrote: Lol...haven't read all of it. Just some pertaining to me. I can attest that what CD said was true. I don't care if you believe it or not. Our word is a lot more reliable than your fairy tale. Jus' sayin'.

Kitty-

Thank you for joining the discussion. 

If you DO decide to go through the thread more carefully, you will note that at NO time did I ever dispute the truth of what CD, Steel or Parkers originally posted. Obviously, I did not dispute your witness of CD's experience, either.

What I illustrated, however, is that when people tell us what they experience or see, in the absence of evidence to the contrary (about their character, etc), we can normally believe what they have reported.

This is just as true of the four gospel writers as it is of CD, Steel, Parkers and you.

Now, I would not say that this ALONE proves that God exists or that Jesus is God, but it does suggest that there is a better case for the historical reliability of the NT than most in this forum fully appreciate.

---

(June 7, 2015 at 2:49 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Oh, that's right.  You don't have jack-shit.

And you're not even intelligent enough to see that crucial distinction.

Heh. Intelligent? I manage to get by.

I posted three questions to CD a minute or two ago. See what you can do with them.

Thanks.

(June 7, 2015 at 3:39 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 7, 2015 at 1:20 am)Randy Carson Wrote: When CD, Parkers and Steel took exception to my "atheists in foxholes" comment, they wanted to counter my comments with their own personal experiences (CD and Parkers) and the experiences of others (in Steel's case). When they put them into writing in an online forum, they had every expectation that what they wrote would be accepted and believed as true. 

Now, they may counter after the fact that they don't give a hoot whether I believe it or not...but that isn't consistent with their motivation at the time they first posted. At that point, it was their expectation that their anecdotal evidence would be demonstrate that I was in the wrong about "atheists in foxholes". IOW, it was their expectation that their personal eyewitness testimony would be sufficient to overcome my previous comments.

You're absolutely wrong. Why do you think I have that stuff online? I've had this "atheist in a foxhole" conversation several times before, and you're not the first theist to question what I've said about it -- hell, you're not even the first theist here at this forum; you can ask Drich about that. So I didn't expect at all to be accepted at face value, and that is exactly why I have this sort of stuff loaded onto my Tinypic.  If you go and look at the upload dates, you'll see they long predate this questioning.

Parkers, I do not and have never denied your service or your testimony about your experiences. So, I'm not sure why you keep referring me to your service records....I BELIEVE YOU.

That's the whole point of this...I can believe what you say about your service, your experiences with "atheists in foxholes" and the authenticity of the documents you have scanned and put online, etc.

I don't know you from Adam, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in spite of the fact that you are highly motivated to prove me wrong (above just about all others in the forum have been out to do so since the day I arrived - and that's saying something).

I BELIEVE YOU because in the absence of evidence to the contrary about your character, your motivations, your mental state, etc., I have no reason to believe that you would lie about something important to you.

Neither did the apostles.

Pro Tip Randy

1. Pslams - don't use them if you were to read them in order of the time they were written you can see how pointless it is using them in a argument.

2. Gospels - don't use those either

3. Bible passages - were heard them all before don't bother

4. Don't piss people off

5. Show a little respect.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pro Tip

1. Be ORIGINAL <- important.

2. Don't be a ass.

(June 7, 2015 at 11:00 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Why is what the authors of the gospels wrote about the things they saw any less credible than the things you wrote about (highlighted above for clarity)?

Alternatively, why should we give you the benefit of the doubt - and take you at your word - but not do the same with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

Can you explain what makes YOUR write up of YOUR personal experiences more believable than theirs?

You know, you could keep asking these questions, or, you could go back and see the answers to them that have existed here since yesterday, twenty minutes after you first posed this point. I mean, you've definitely already read them, you deleted all of them bar the first and last line of my post for a quote earlier, so what gives, continuing to pretend that they haven't been given?

That's lie number three.

(June 7, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: How did I impugn anyone? If I did, it was accidental, because I was very careful in what I wrote and how I phrased my questions. But if you disagree, please quote me verbatim in context so that I may see my error.

"There are no atheists in foxholes," which is a statement you made about me specifically, and then applied it to everyone else, while sticking to that statement, impugns our character in that is asserts we are insincere in our beliefs. You backpedal by calling it an aphorism, a general rule, but that doesn't alter that the content is insulting, nor that you said it, to me, with specific use of pronouns asserting that I would believe in god when I get close to death.

Quote:Why do you call me a liar? I've read your posts...you write almost as much as I do...and I wasn't impressed with the response you gave. So, yeah, you responded, but you didn't really refute my point.

Why do I call you a liar? Because when you say that nobody has addressed what you said, while knowing someone addressed what you said, that's a lie. You might not be impressed with what I wrote, but your fiat dismissal means absolutely nothing.

Quote:I will say this...and this is not a courtesy that I think many will extend to me...I will go back and re-read your post CAREFULLY a second time. Okay?

Maybe try actually responding to it, eh? Because "nuh uh!" isn't much of a rebuttal, in fact it smells distinctly like a dodge.

Quote:<snort>

People throw so much crap at me in these threads that I don't bother to respond to most of them. But if you watch carefully, you will note that from time to time someone like Julia or Jenny or Jorm or somebody will ask a decent question to which I try to provide a courteous thoughtful reply.

And I LIKE being challenged in a serious way because it makes me think my own positions through more carefully. So, one of the reasons I'm in the forum at all is to challenge myself to learn, etc. IOW, I WANT people to respond on a serious, intellectual level. Instead, it's all epithets and ad hominems and the latest filibuster about some thing eating stuff...perhaps the thinking is that if they derail the thread long enough, I'll go away. Silliness, really.

But, yeah, as I said, I didn't see anything of substance the first time, but I will go back and re-evaluate your post. Now, in fact.

Hey, you say you want a serious response, but when I give one that references the scholarly consensus on the gospels, plus probabilities with regard to reality, you dismiss it out of hand, without a second thought, as though "I don't find this convincing" counts for anything. I already know you most likely disagree with what I wrote; the reasons why are what we're here to discuss, and when you won't even post them then it's you who is derailing the thread, not me. I responded to the meat of what you wrote. You responded with "nah," when you bothered to respond at all; lest we forget, your very first response to what we all had wrote was to say that nobody had addressed it. I had, and it turns out that you didn't want to seriously respond.

But somehow, we're the ones not producing anything meaningful.