The real religion?

[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.