The real religion?

[RoadRunner79]

It's also amusing to me, that people are asking for evidence over the internet, and then deny any type of evidence, that could possibly be presented over the internet.

---

We're not denying anything.  What we're saying is that there needs to be something that corroborates the claim.

Appeals to popularity and tradition don't fit the bill.  That a religion formed due to a particular prophet's rise and fall doesn't speak to the truth of his divine nature.  Again, these people had a vested interest in keeping their cult going.  Whether it was because they were true believers, people who simply recognized the practical benefits of starting and keeping a revolution going, or some combination thereof doesn't really matter.*

Keep in mind, this happens every time Steve gets cornered.  He regurgitates WLC and Plantinga, then when that fails he falls back to the tired "These guys wouldn't perpetuate a lie (why not?) and look at how many people believe, and believed back then (so what?), and why don't you disprove this unfalsifiable thing (utterly illogical)?"

I mean, for all the shit Randy got (and deservedly so), he at least attempted to bring documents other than the NT and philosophical masturbation to the party.  

*Note that I accept that there's an incredibly remote chance that Jesus actually is the real messiah and performed a myriad of miracles.  The thing is, as a skeptic, I need to weigh that possibility against what I know of reality.  And what I know is that people don't come back to life after being dead for a few days.  They cannot heal others simply by laying hands upon them and demanding that the illness (or devil) leave.  They cannot walk upon water, nor alter/add to its chemical makeup simply on a whim.  And I cannot take the accounts of people trying to create/market a religion who say such things actually happened at face value.

---

 And no, these impossible things aren't credible because of their impossibleness.

Why do you claim that they are impossible.

[RoadRunner79]

Dafuq?!  

RR, if we discovered a cow that could breath under water you would literally be DROWNING in scientific data as researchers stampeded each other to study the damn thing.  How is this anything like your old book?   Where is the scientific data supporting the ridiculous claims in your damn book?  

You aren't making any sense, or I'm tired, or both.

And you would just believe these scientific writings?

What if the cow died after 10 months (eaten by a crocodile). Would you believe that this cow existed? Based on what???

[Jesster]

---

---

You were arguing with a straw man before and you still are now. Argue against the actual points being made instead.

I wasn't making an argument.... I was applying the points being made.

---

What we haven't been accepting as evidence for the things said in the bible is the bible itself. The source of the claim is not evidence for the claim.

Exactly why the video and expert testimony in my court example are not evidence.  Do you think it odd, that evidence is rarely presented in court?

If you want evidence for anything you are deciding to mock from your personal opinion, LadyForCamus has already pointed you where you need to go for that. Actual studies go into science. Journals are written where anyone else can follow the research and do the tests themselves. There's not just a "Ye Olde Book of Science" that is comparable to the bible.

Actually, there is a reproducibility problem in science (which I've posted before from the journal Nature).   Either it is not reproduced at all, or attempts to reproduce it fail in an alarming number of circumstances across all fields of science.  And some sciences are not reproducible by their nature  If we can't test them for ourselves then what?...  However if your argument, is that the Bible is not science (neener, neener).   Then I agree.  But, what is your point?

Do you think that some claims of the Bible where public enough to be tested at the time they where written?  How did the message fair, in places where people where present, and could refute or verify what was being claimed?  Did the disciples act as if what they where claiming was true?

---

Then they were terrible points aimed at a straw man.

Exactly why the video and expert testimony in my court example are not evidence.  Do you think it odd, that evidence is rarely presented in court?

This is why you don't run the courts. You don't really know much about them.

Actually, there is a reproducibility problem in science (which I've posted before from the journal Nature).   Either it is not reproduced at all, or attempts to reproduce it fail in an alarming number of circumstances across all fields of science.  And some sciences are not reproducible by their nature  If we can't test them for ourselves then what?...  

If a scientific claim cannot be reproduced, then it is rejected by other scientists and not accepted as scientific theory. Do you even science? That's a rhetorical question.

However if your argument, is that the Bible is not science (neener, neener).   Then I agree.  But, what is your point?

No. Go back and read it again. I said that the source of the claim (the bible) is not evidence of the claims within (the bullshit stories in the bible). Stop trying to submit that as evidence.

Do you think that some claims of the Bible where public enough to be tested at the time they where written?  How did the message fair, in places where people where present, and could refute or verify what was being claimed?  Did the disciples act as if what they where claiming was true?

I don't make any claims about what happened in the bible. There's no eyewitness accounts of anything involving Jesus. None if it is verified. Until it is, it's a bunch of old stories. If any of the supernatural claims there have any merit, it is up to the believer to dig up that evidence.

[Jesster]

Dafuq?!  

RR, if we discovered a cow that could breath under water you would literally be DROWNING in scientific data as researchers stampeded each other to study the damn thing.  How is this anything like your old book?   Where is the scientific data supporting the ridiculous claims in your damn book?  

You aren't making any sense, or I'm tired, or both.

And you would just believe these scientific writings?

What if the cow died after 10 months (eaten by a crocodile).  Would you believe that this cow existed?  Based on what???

We can discover verifiable evidence of that.

 I am no longer taking you seriously because nobody is that stupid. Heh... no, I took you for a fool in the first place anyway.

Before you scream "ad hominem", I am not calling your arguments terrible because you are a fool. I am calling you a fool because your arguments are terrible.

[LadyForCamus]

---

---

You were arguing with a straw man before and you still are now. Argue against the actual points being made instead.

I wasn't making an argument.... I was applying the points being made.

What we haven't been accepting as evidence for the things said in the bible is the bible itself. The source of the claim is not evidence for the claim.

Exactly why the video and expert testimony in my court example are not evidence. Do you think it odd, that evidence is rarely presented in court?

If you want evidence for anything you are deciding to mock from your personal opinion, LadyForCamus has already pointed you where you need to go for that. Actual studies go into science. Journals are written where anyone else can follow the research and do the tests themselves. There's not just a "Ye Olde Book of Science" that is comparable to the bible.

Actually, there is a reproducibility problem in science (which I've posted before from the journal Nature). Either it is not reproduced at all, or attempts to reproduce it fail in an alarming number of circumstances across all fields of science. And some sciences are not reproducible by their nature If we can't test them for ourselves then what?... However if your argument, is that the Bible is not science (neener, neener). Then I agree. But, what is your point?

Do you think that some claims of the Bible where public enough to be tested at the time they where written? How did the message fair, in places where people where present, and could refute or verify what was being claimed? Did the disciples act as if what they where claiming was true?

If results from a scientific study cannot be reproduced, then there was a problem with the original study design, problem with data interpretation/extrapolation, or a problem with the hypothesis. This is not a hit against science itself as you are implying. That is the beauty of the scientific method: it is a self-correcting process. Christians have no such process. If they did, their book would implode.

[LadyForCamus]

Dafuq?!  

RR, if we discovered a cow that could breath under water you would literally be DROWNING in scientific data as researchers stampeded each other to study the damn thing.  How is this anything like your old book?   Where is the scientific data supporting the ridiculous claims in your damn book?  

You aren't making any sense, or I'm tired, or both.

And you would just believe these scientific writings?

What if the cow died after 10 months (eaten by a crocodile). Would you believe that this cow existed? Based on what???

Bold mine:

Based on the scientific evidence you mean to say? Sure I would.

Please do not try to equivocate "biblical writings" and "scientific data." Logical fallacy. Tisk, tisk.

[RoadRunner79]

---

I wasn't making an argument.... I was applying the points being made.
[hide]

Exactly why the video and expert testimony in my court example are not evidence.  Do you think it odd, that evidence is rarely presented in court?


Actually, there is a reproducibility problem in science (which I've posted before from the journal Nature).   Either it is not reproduced at all, or attempts to reproduce it fail in an alarming number of circumstances across all fields of science.  And some sciences are not reproducible by their nature  If we can't test them for ourselves then what?...  However if your argument, is that the Bible is not science (neener, neener).   Then I agree.  But, what is your point?

Do you think that some claims of the Bible where public enough to be tested at the time they where written?  How did the message fair, in places where people where present, and could refute or verify what was being claimed?  Did the disciples act as if what they where claiming was true?

---

[/hide]

Then they were terrible points aimed at a straw man.

Please expound on this!

This is why you don't run the courts. You don't really know much about them.

Actually, I've never been in a court room.   Are you saying, that they actually bring all the evidence out in front of the jury's?   In a murder trial, do they bring out the body? Just curious....

If a scientific claim cannot be reproduced, then it is rejected by other scientists and not accepted as scientific theory. Do you even science? That's a rhetorical question.

Or it is peer reviewed and cited..... you say tomato... I say tomato.

However if your argument, is that the Bible is not science (neener, neener).   Then I agree.  But, what is your point?

No. Go back and read it again. I said that the source of the claim (the bible) is not evidence of the claims within (the bullshit stories in the bible). Stop trying to submit that as evidence.
[/quote]
So why did you bring up reproducibility and science? I'm not following here. First the bible is multiple sources. Second, are you saying that there is no evidence, if you did not personally witness it? Again, I go back to an expert witness giving testimony in court.... is this not evidence?

Do you think that some claims of the Bible where public enough to be tested at the time they where written?  How did the message fair, in places where people where present, and could refute or verify what was being claimed?  Did the disciples act as if what they where claiming was true?

I don't make any claims about what happened in the bible. There's no eyewitness accounts of anything involving Jesus. None if it is verified. Until it is, it's a bunch of old stories. If any of the supernatural claims there have any merit, it is up to the believer to dig up that evidence.
[/quote]

I count three claims in the above statements.

[RoadRunner79]

And you would just believe these scientific writings?

What if the cow died after 10 months (eaten by a crocodile).  Would you believe that this cow existed?  Based on what???

Bold mine:

Based on the scientific evidence you mean to say?  Sure I would.

Please do not try to equivocate between "biblical writings" and "scientific data."  Logical fallacy.  Tisk, tisk.

And do tell... what logical fallacy is that.... I thought that testimony isn't evidence?

[LadyForCamus]

Bold mine:

Based on the scientific evidence you mean to say?  Sure I would.

Please do not try to equivocate between "biblical writings" and "scientific data."  Logical fallacy.  Tisk, tisk.

And do tell... what logical fallacy is that.... I thought that testimony isn't evidence?

Come now. You used the word "writings" instead of "evidence" for a reason, yes? What is that reason, RR?

[RoadRunner79]

---

I wasn't making an argument.... I was applying the points being made.


Exactly why the video and expert testimony in my court example are not evidence.  Do you think it odd, that evidence is rarely presented in court?


Actually, there is a reproducibility problem in science (which I've posted before from the journal Nature).   Either it is not reproduced at all, or attempts to reproduce it fail in an alarming number of circumstances across all fields of science.  And some sciences are not reproducible by their nature  If we can't test them for ourselves then what?...  However if your argument, is that the Bible is not science (neener, neener).   Then I agree.  But, what is your point?

Do you think that some claims of the Bible where public enough to be tested at the time they where written?  How did the message fair, in places where people where present, and could refute or verify what was being claimed?  Did the disciples act as if what they where claiming was true?

---

If results from a scientific study cannot be reproduced, then there was  a problem with the original study design, problem with data interpretation/extrapolation, or a problem with the hypothesis.  This is not a hit against science itself as you are implying.  That is the beauty of the scientific method: it is a self-correcting process.  Christians have no such process.  If they did, their book would implode.  

I don't think that it is a hit against science... I like science; I just don't think that it is the be all, end all of all truth. Also I disagree with your claim that Christians have no such process. Much like science, we can't change the data, but we can reassess our understanding of it, it's called theology.