The real religion?

[LadyForCamus]

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. 

So then, if they where empirically observed, then it may follow, that either A) an unknown process is at work or B)  They where caused by something outside of the mechanics of the universe.  Would you agree?

"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.

What evidence, do you have for this claim of "vested interest"  And I don't think that there is a "proof", "proof" is for math and logic.  I don't understand you logic here.   I could say that those who study evolution have a "vested interest" and are sometimes coordinated.   How should I handle this?   Also, are you claiming that scripture is a conspiracy theory?

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.  

I find it unlikely to be able to invent a story, and gather followers from the area where the story allegedly took place, who devoutly believe that story in the face of persecution, and little to gain by it.  

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.

So you made up your minds made up before applying logic and reason.


(edited for formatting... forgot to open a quote)

RR,

You can conflate science and religion; data and scripture all day long. You can do it with your thumb up your ass while singing Yankee Doodle for all I care. It's still a logically fallacious argument

It was a bad argument the last six times you tried it, and if you left and came back here in ten years, guess what?! It would still be a BAD fucking argument. Science and religion are different. That's why one is called "science" and the other is called "religion". They are not synonyms.

I'm done wasting my time arguing against fallacies. This is the problem with you guys. People get so fed up with the willful ignorance that they say, "fuck this assclown, I'm done," and the Christian walks away Feeling as though they've accomplished something.

Congratulations, you've accomplished making yourself look like a stupid asshole for five pages. I'll get started on your trophy.