The real religion?

[Edwardo Piet]

Wut?

[LadyForCamus]

LFC said it's not sufficient, and others have said it is not evidence at all....

Oh, I get it now. You can't tell the difference between a science book with data and theories and the bible. You're trying to equate the two in order put the claims of each on equal footing.

[Faith No More]

Also, given what I know, this is a pretty extraordinary claim.  In case you haven't heard, testimony and memory are unreliable, so I'm going to have to ask for the strictest scientific evidence here.

Actually, it's a fairly mundane claim, and I don't need testimony or memory. Your failure to grasp science is archived here in this 70 page thread.

[RoadRunner79]

At some point we may have to write him off as doing that intentionally simply to cause irritation. People can be dense, but there is a limit.

Yeah, I really do wonder if he is a Poe. He's had the evolution thing explained to him on this forum SO MANY times, it's hard to believe anyone can be this clueless unless it's willful. Or he's just faking the whole thing.

I have said a number of times to a number of people that it's not about evolution and you still don't get it.... I don't think I can be anymore direct. A little less direct, but I pretty much said that I was a being POE, in the number of times I stated, that I don't think that these are good arguments, simply to reject testimony (or second hand knowledge) out of hand, and without any reason that isn't begging the question.

Now I'm not saying to go to the other extreme either, and accept just anything. I hoped that we could get to that point in the discussion, but at this point, I don't see that happening. It amazes me, that thinking critically about epistemology and applying it in a consistent and coherent manner is this difficult.

[Jesster]

Yeah, I really do wonder if he is a Poe.   He's had the evolution thing explained to him on this forum SO MANY times, it's hard to believe anyone can be this clueless unless it's willful.  Or he's just faking the whole thing.

I have said a number of times to a number of people that it's not about evolution and you still don't get it.... I don't think I can be anymore direct. A little less direct, but I pretty much said that I was a being POE, in the number of times I stated, that I don't think that these are good arguments, simply to reject  testimony (or second hand knowledge) out of hand, and without any reason that isn't begging the question.  

Now I'm not saying to go to the other extreme either, and accept just anything.  I hoped that we could get to that point in the discussion, but at this point, I don't see that happening.  It amazes me, that thinking critically about epistemology and applying it in a consistent and coherent manner is this difficult.

[KevinM1]

Begging the question.... LMAO. Guys, you need to establish that the NT and other documents were written by credible witnesses, and that such testimony regarding Jesus' magic was accurate. The questions raised about them is, and has always been, about corroboration. Is there anything credible that can back these stories up? Things provided by unbiased sources that don't have a vested interest in it being true?

Instead, we keep getting deflections.

"The apostles were there!" - Okay
"They witnessed Jesus' death..." - Okay, since death by crucifixion was a known means of punishment
"...and resurrection!" - Given that such a resurrection violates everything we know about the universe, we're going to need more evidence before we accept that it happened
"Why would they lie?" - Why are you assuming they're telling the truth? These people had a motive for lying, namely a burgeoning religious/political revolution. And, again, it doesn't conform to what we know about the universe
"Why would they risk torture and death?" - Because that's what zealous revolutionaries/cultists do?
"How could the church gain such popularity so quickly?" - Popularity has nothing to do with veracity. See: anti-vaxxers
"You cannot provide any evidence that this is false!" - I don't need to. I'm not the one claiming the documents and testimony are true. I'm raising objections that must be sufficiently addressed before I believe it's true, while giving plausible alternatives
"Evolution!" - Oh, fuck off

So, with the bullshit out of the way, please provide actual corroborating evidence that supports the magical aspects of the NT. Or accept that you've simply made a leap of faith without such evidence because the thought of a magic zombie savior gives you warm fuzzies. Either way works for me.

[robvalue]

Need I point out again that is still irrelevant to the OP?

Even if we accept the bible is true, my point still stands. My point is about now, not about 2000 years ago.

All this could possibly show is that Christinaity used to be the real religion, before becoming entirely irrelevant. Christians have nothing to show for it now. It's all a promise for the next life, like every other religion.

[bennyboy]

Regarding the list of what you want to see, you are just repeating an old tired objection that in reality had we had those things, they would be challenged under the standard fair atheist arguments like "hearsay, eyewitnesses are not reliable, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The real problem is the atheist presupposition that God does not exist and miracles do not happen and therefore the content of the NT can never be true no matter what piece of "evidence" turns up.

You know what would put all this to rest, right away? God bothering to show up today, and to work the same wonders He did 2000 years ago. Is God dead? If not, demonstrate that he has a non-zero degree of interaction with the world today-- beyond of course, how fantastic people claim they feel when they hold hands and pray, or their claims that God helped them score a touchdown or whatever.

Here's a hint-- if you need to go back to 2000 year-old texts to demonstrate the existence of something which is eternal, either it doesn't exist, or you're doing it wrong.

[Arkilogue]

Regarding the list of what you want to see, you are just repeating an old tired objection that in reality had we had those things, they would be challenged under the standard fair atheist arguments like "hearsay, eyewitnesses are not reliable, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The real problem is the atheist presupposition that God does not exist and miracles do not happen and therefore the content of the NT can never be true no matter what piece of "evidence" turns up.

You know what would put all this to rest, right away?  God bothering to show up today, and to work the same wonders He did 2000 years ago.  Is God dead?  If not, demonstrate that he has a non-zero degree of interaction with the world today-- beyond of course, how fantastic people claim they feel when they hold hands and pray, or their claims that God helped them score a touchdown or whatever.

Here's a hint-- if you need to go back to 2000 year-old texts to demonstrate the existence of something which is eternal, either it doesn't exist, or you're doing it wrong.

You think Jesus is The God? Who was he praying to?

[bennyboy]

You are quoting me, and asking me that? lolwut?