The real religion?

[Crossless2.0]

1) You did not address how you can examine a supernatural claim with natural science--nevermind, just be definition, it cannot be done. You are equating 'truth' with 'scientific truth'. That is scientism and is a very tenuous (at best) worldview that does not hold up to scrutiny. There are many other truths that science cannot and does not comment one.


2) So, you say we cannot know anything for sure if it is comes from the human mind. I don't think you live that way, you just want to use that in your argument because you don't like the conclusion. This version of the "eyewitnesses aren't reliable" argument against the existence of God has all the same flaws as the original. 


3) Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

=a poor worldview that is self-refuting. 


4) There are thousands (if not more) cases where people become Christians based on reading the NT alone. No convincing there. No outside pressure. No ulterior motives. How do you account for those conversions? And who said anything about no evidence. There is plenty of evidence contained in the NT alone. You might not find it convincing or have beliefs about it's truth claims, but it will always be evidence.

I took the liberty of removing LFC's remarks you were quoting and to number your responses to her post for ease of reference.

(1) I rather doubt that LFC is actually a 'scientism-ist' (just to increase the clumsy ugliness of your pet word), no matter how desperately you wish to paint her that way. Your claim isn't exclusively supernatural. After all, you (Steve II) are not supernatural, but verifiably natural and fallible. And you, natural and fallible man, are claiming to have had an encounter with a supernatural being in this world, not in some supernatural realm. Oh, and not just any supernatural being, but a specific one who is claimed in your holy book to have done much more than simply encounter believers "in their minds somehow" but to have actually walked the Earth, eaten a meal with a guy, etc. It isn't unreasonable to suppose that such a being might occasionally verifiably affect things in the world by its 'presence' in such a way that these effects could be observed and studied. So far, all you're giving us is, "I just know that this was a supernatural experience!" and when pressed to provide evidence of such an experience you point to the 'a lot of believers who have similar experiences are less dickish than they used to be' gambit.

And you still haven't done a thing to dispel the notion that you believers are indulging in wish fulfillment, errors in discerning the causes for powerful emotional experiences, etc. You seem fairly convinced that the religious experiences of people outside your faith tradition are less reliable but you haven't given us any good reason not to lump you in with them.

(2) No, we don't normally live our lives disbelieving every eye witness report we hear. Most of us assign a degree of significance to what is being claimed. You tell me you saw your neighbor eating sausage for breakfast? I have no good reason to disbelieve you and don't really care. You tell me you have had a personal encounter with the supernatural creator of the universe, you are going to get a different standard of scrutiny -- WLC notwithstanding. In a court of law, where 'reasonable doubt' is the gold standard, we don't uncritically accept eye witness testimony. Why on earth would you expect us to accept a lesser standard when it comes to such claims as you're making -- self-serving claims at that, since I imagine it would be devastating to most believers if they were to learn definitively that their most cherished experiences are based on error and falsehood.

(3) Who, aside from the logical positivists from bygone days, can you name who actually matches this characterization?

(4) What's to account for? So some people convert based on reading the NT. Big fucking deal. People also convert to Islam based on reading the Koran. I'm sure you're about as impressed by that as good evidence for the truth of Islam as I am by people converting to Christianity after reading the NT as being good evidence for the truth of your faith. People come to ridiculous conclusions about all manner of things for bad reasons every single day.