Satan Disproves Christianity

[Esquilax]

No, I've been pointing out differences in level of evidence.

Could you be a little clearer, in that case? Because to me, all I'm seeing is a bunch of scaffolding that may or may not be true, around a central premise that may or may not be true, with nothing one might call evidence involved.

That's ridiculous. Most of what we know, we know from testimony, and a lot of that from books. Your position will boil down to a materialist philosophy. You presumably think it's OK to believe in many non-religious things after reading books about them.

Yes, because most non-religious concepts conform to what we know to be true about the physical world. I might believe things after hearing testimony on them, but that stops when we start talking about claims that violate the physical laws of the universe, one way or another. If you want be to believe that there was a man named Jesus Christ then fine, but the moment you start claiming that he walked on water or raised from the dead, I'm going to start requiring more evidence, because those things do not happen. It's the same level of evidence that stops you from believing alien abduction stories sight unseen, but for whatever reason you lower that bar when it comes to equally fantastic claims from the bible.

There's also a little thing called corroboration; the majority of testimony that I would accept can be confirmed through multiple sources, and yet aside from the bible there are no accounts of any of the miracle claims therein.

There you go with same amount of evidence again, after we've discussed this repeatedly. No, an admittedly made-up claim is not supported as well as claims that purport to be true. A book from the biography section is more likely to accurately reflect reality than a book from the fiction section.

Cast the gnomes from your mind. Now we're talking about gods. Ones that people fully believe to be true, and the books written about them purport to be non-fiction. Does that help clarify what I'm trying to do, here?

Sure - but some books are more likely to be true than others, and we can compare books in this regard based on stated intent of the author and other factors.

What other factors would you use in determining this? That's what I'm interested in hearing about.

And again, it provides better support than people who quickly recant and admit they just made stuff up.

Seriously, I don't give a shit about the gnomes.