The Reasons to Believe in Yahweh

[Minimalist]

In short, the evidence for Christianity is better than for other religions, as we know more about its prophets.

Which is saying a lot as is there is no evidence for fucking jesus.

[Jackalope]

In short, the evidence for Christianity is better than for other religions, as we know more about its prophets.

Which is saying a lot as is there is no evidence for fucking jesus.

On the other hand, we have many reasons to think that YHWH, if he exists, is a collosal dickhead.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

In short, the evidence for Christianity is better than for other religions, as we know more about its prophets.

Please confirm I am not included, because I don't want to scratch my eyes out...!

[median]

We did a thread on this topic not tto long ago. IIRC it focused mostly on comparisons to Islam and Muhammed's lack of miraculous signs, and may have touched on the Greek mythology toward the end. In short, the evidence for Christianity is better than for other religions, as we know more about its prophets.

What 'evidence' are you speaking of? What is it, exactly, that you are attempting to call evidence?

To be honest, I have no intention of hostility toward you (or most professing Christians), as I was one of you for many years, but I'm just tired of hearing the spin and rationalizing. Even William Lane Craig (in his book Reasonable Faith) claims that if all of his arguments fail, which I personally think they do, he is not at fault because he is "fallen" and has the "experience of God" to fall back on. Is this the same for you? If so, why be an apologist in the first place? Why try to talk about it? If not, what demonstrable/extraordinary evidence do you have that can backup these supernatural claims while showing the other religions are false?

Couldn't it very well be that your religion is yet another man-made farce, just like the rest of them?

[Minimalist]

What 'evidence' are you speaking of? What is it, exactly, that you are attempting to call evidence?

I bet he thinks its his fucking bible.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

What 'evidence' are you speaking of? What is it, exactly, that you are attempting to call evidence?

I bet he thinks its his fucking bible.

Case closed.

[John V]

Better evidence, or stronger claims? I once heard (read) someone claiming that Muhammad's excuse for not performing miracles was weak, therefore Christianity has more evidence. When, in fact, neither can be proven to have done what they did, miracle or not. Does it really boil down to which one has more miracle claims, and which has more made up stories about it?

No, it doesn't boil down to that, but that's certainly a factor. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This challenge was put forth to Muhammed, and he admitted he had no extraordinary evidence.

Also, this is argued from a perspective that assumes one religion must be right, and that atheism is not a viable option. If it weren't, then the arguement wouldn't be made at all.

It's made from the perspective the OP specified.

---

In short, the evidence for Christianity is better than for other religions, as we know more about its prophets.

Please confirm I am not included, because I don't want to scratch my eyes out...!

Fair enough. Most internet atheists these days don't know jack. I should have said that more knowledge is available for some religions' prophets than for others.

---

Regarding evidence, a dictionary definition is:

ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

The Bible doesn't fit the second definition, as "establish" is too strong a word. However, it does fit the first. There are people who have read the Bible and found it acceptable grounds for belief in the events described within it. It's not conclusive, and you're free not to believe. However, you don't get to proclaim what is and isn't evidence for all people.

[Cinjin]

Fair enough. Most internet atheists these days don't know jack.

This would be laughable if it weren't so idiotic. This statement is just random pellets of shit falling out of your mouth.


Regarding evidence, a dictionary definition is:

ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

The Bible doesn't fit the second definition, as "establish" is too strong a word. However, it does fit the first. There are people who have read the Bible and found it acceptable grounds for belief in the events described within it. It's not conclusive, and you're free not to believe. However, you don't get to proclaim what is and isn't evidence for all people.

We don't get to proclaim what??? I can proclaim any damn thing I want. I'll give you an example of proclaiming anything I want.
Ready?

I proclaim that a god named Yammerdud raped a virgin girl several thousand years ago, and conceived a son named Dingdong.
Dingdong was himself a god and commanded the world to proclaim his future reign upon the earth. Yammerdud decided that his own son would have to bake a billion pies to pay for all the wrong-doings of the humans he had made. Dingdong tried to make that many pies, but pissed off a local baker's union in doing so and they nailed him to a tree. Before he died he commanded all his followers to proclaim what is and isn't evidence of his existence. To this day, I am required by my lord and savior Dingdong to proclaim what is and is not the right way to live.

Meanwhile, Hostess picked up Dingdong's debt, paid it off a billion times over and Yammerdud is just wishing he had required blood instead of pies.




Yeah ... please DO continue telling other people what we can and cannot proclaim - you hypocritical dickbag.



EDIT: See the back story of Yammerdud and how the one TRUE God really roles.

[John V]

Er, OK, technically you can proclaim any damn thing you want. The point is that if you proclaim that words have meanings other than their standard meanings and you don't support such special usage, any arguments based on those words are likewise unsupported. Sorry, thought that was obvious.

[median]

Fair enough. Most internet atheists these days don't know jack. I should have said that more knowledge is available for some religions' prophets than for others.

---

Regarding evidence, a dictionary definition is:

ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

The Bible doesn't fit the second definition, as "establish" is too strong a word. However, it does fit the first. There are people who have read the Bible and found it acceptable grounds for belief in the events described within it. It's not conclusive, and you're free not to believe. However, you don't get to proclaim what is and isn't evidence for all people.

To the first point, it seems you are mixing definitions. We do not have "knowledge of prophets". We have people (whose standards of evidence are very low, and who practice credulity, gullibility, and intellectual hypocrisy) who read these texts (and since they already WANTED to believe the supernatural) they ASSUMED it was "a true prophet". But that is an unwarranted assumption/assertion. You have not provided extraordinary evidence of any true prophets, b/c "prophet" assumes your theology (and no, the bible is not extraordinary evidence). The bible is THE CLAIM, upon which you must now provide the extraordinary evidence (just like the other religious texts). So claiming "more manuscripts", or "confirmed archeology", etc are not sufficient (anymore than New York confirms Spiderman or Egypt confirms Horus/Isis). Textual accounts of the supernatural (just like all the other texts through history) are not sufficient to establish a miracle. You need far more than this (even as your bible alludes! Mark16). Unexplained phenomena are not evidence either, because there are hundreds of examples of unexplained phenomena that are later found to be perfectly natural in their origin (i.e. - explained!). Fact is, you can literally call ANY strange occurrence a "miracle" when you don't have more information. This is exactly what the Astrologers and New Agers do. It doesn't work.

Second, the bible's claims to the supernatural (just like other religious texts) does not fit either of your definitions. Textual accounts of the supernatural are NOT grounds for belief. That is why you have "FAITH", remember? But faith is useless, because it does not provide a reliable avenue for separating fact from fiction.