The real religion?

[Jesster]

[/hide]
Too bad that "data" doesn't get rigorously tested in theology, just presumed as true.

What do you have in mind for rigorous testing in this context?   Are you saying, that if I can't rigorously test something, then I should presume it to be false?
Shall we examine that with evolution?

Let me draw a line here really quickly. What you seem to be trying to do is refute scientific claims to prove that god is plausible.

That's not how this game works. God is only plausible once you show evidence for God. Entirely separate claims have nothing to do with that.

Stop spinning.

[RoadRunner79]

Actually there are a couple of places that claim this from within the Bible.  By your rules of evidence.... what would you accept as evidence, that someone was an eyewitness?   Not just about the bible, but about anything?

Show me what you've got.

Not that I'm expecting anything from you. All I hear is claims that I won't accept evidence.

I don't think that it is unreasonable here, to have you answer the question asked, about what you expect (or accept) as evidence that someone was an eyewitness first.

[Jesster]

Show me what you've got.

Not that I'm expecting anything from you. All I hear is claims that I won't accept evidence.

I don't think that it is unreasonable here, to have you answer the question asked, about what you expect (or accept) as evidence that someone was an eyewitness first.

Show

The

Evidence

[LadyForCamus]

[/hide]
Too bad that "data" doesn't get rigorously tested in theology, just presumed as true.

What do you have in mind for rigorous testing in this context? Are you saying, that if I can't rigorously test something, then I should presume it to be false?
Shall we examine that with evolution?

Please...not the evolution thing again, RR. PLEASE. RocketSurgeon spent a lot of time with you on this, including providing you with educational material, and inviting you to PM him if you were interested in actually learning about the field of evolutionary biology. If you choose to be willfully ignorant on the subject, that's your own personal issue. It does not concern the theory of evolution in any way.

[RoadRunner79]

What do you have in mind for rigorous testing in this context?   Are you saying, that if I can't rigorously test something, then I should presume it to be false?
Shall we examine that with evolution?

Let me draw a line here really quickly. What you seem to be trying to do is refute scientific claims to prove that god is plausible.

That's not how this game works. God is only plausible once you show evidence for God. Entirely separate claims have nothing to do with that.

Stop spinning.

I'm not trying to refute any scientific claims here.... I think these are bad arguments and premises.  Do you think they make good arguments against science?  I don't, and I don't assume that because I haven't personally experienced something, that it is false.

[Jesster]

Let me draw a line here really quickly. What you seem to be trying to do is refute scientific claims to prove that god is plausible.

That's not how this game works. God is only plausible once you show evidence for God. Entirely separate claims have nothing to do with that.

Stop spinning.

I'm not trying to refute any scientific claims here.... I think these are bad arguments and premises.  Do you think they make good arguments against science?  I don't, and I don't assume that because I have personally experienced something, that it is false.

Read my last two posts. Show the evidence or step away from the podium.

[GrandizerII]

[/hide]
Too bad that "data" doesn't get rigorously tested in theology, just presumed as true.

What do you have in mind for rigorous testing in this context?   Are you saying, that if I can't rigorously test something, then I should presume it to be false?
Shall we examine that with evolution?

Can you first be clear on what you mean by "data"? Just so we're on the same page. It seems to me that you were referring to scripture as the data, which is why I said something about testing "data" rather than following data (as LadyCamus points out correctly). And also, because I fell for a moment for your word play. In science, we make hypotheses about what can be observed and test those hypotheses. And the data is used to test those hypotheses out.

So now that that is out of the way, answering your first question:
No, but you don't presume it to be true either.

As for evolution, nah, don't feel like it.

[RoadRunner79]

What do you have in mind for rigorous testing in this context?   Are you saying, that if I can't rigorously test something, then I should presume it to be false?
Shall we examine that with evolution?

Please...not the evolution thing again, RR.  PLEASE.  RocketSurgeon spent a lot of time with you on this, including providing you with educational material, and inviting you to PM him if you were interested in actually learning about the field of evolutionary biology.   If you choose to be willfully ignorant on the subject, that's your own personal issue.  It does not concern the theory of evolution in any way.

However the premise that writings and claims do not count as evidence apply right? If so, then no one has met the burden of proof, in regards to evolution, and presenting evidence to believe in it.

I do know a fair bit, about many of the claims regarding evolutionary theory, and it's many variations. This is not about that....

[Arkilogue]

I don't think that it is unreasonable here, to have you answer the question asked, about what you expect (or accept) as evidence that someone was an eyewitness first.

Show

The

Evidence

I've been laying out the case and the evidence in several threads, too bad you have me on ignore and waste your time and talents on easy competitors.

Oh well.

[KevinM1]

---

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.

Okay, fine, I'll play your game.  They may not be impossible.  But they violate everything we know about how the universe works.  So, as a shorthand so I don't have to waste everyone's time, I'll stick with the "impossible" label.  It may not be as precise as you want, but, well, tough shit. 

Even with that caveat, there's no reason to believe those things happened, precisely because they violate everything we know about how the universe works. 

"But the messiah, by definition, can break the rules!"  Okay, now prove he's the messiah.  "The bible!"  No, the bible is the claim.  Where's the proof?  "The NT!  It's different accounts from different people!"  No, they're a coordinated set of documents that tell the same tale.  Written by his followers, who had a vested interest in building a religion.

I can write a short story about a real person doing amazing/impossible things.  Those things aren't more likely to be true than not because they're amazing.  Indeed, it's the opposite.  They're less likely to be true because they don't conform to what we know of the universe.  And thinking Jesus is somehow different/special/immune to skepticism or logic or anything else due to wish casting is ridiculous.  

A preacher named Jesus may have existed.  I'll grant that he did for the sake of argument.  But his magical aspects are incredibly unlikely.  And without multiple, independent sources describing his magic (or, at the very least, a single neutral observer rather than his devout followers), I see no compelling reason to believe those aspects of his tale.  Everything else - letters and documents written by his followers, the popularity of the early church - is merely a distraction, and a weak one at that.