Satan Disproves Christianity

[John V]

Actually, I'm trying to show you that whatever testimony your holy book has can't be the reason you believe in your religion, because other religions have holy books too, and you don't believe any of those. They're all making claims in the same format with the same level of evidence backing them;

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

the thing I'm asking is why this one book is the one you've chosen, and that has nothing to do with what's actually in the book, because the events described in a book do not testify to the reality of those events.

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.

This has been the whole point of the thought experiment about the gnomes; to get you to see that there are plenty of claims that you don't believe, despite having the same amount of evidence, and to ask yourself why it is that you'll believe one but not the other.

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.

And Spiderman can do whatever a spider can. A thing being written in a book does not make it true.

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.

And human sacrifices willingly died for their ancient gods, I'm sure. Again, someone being convinced that something is true enough to get themselves hurt over it doesn't make it so. People hallucinate themselves off the edge of buildings all the time.

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

Assuming you can trust everything that's written in either book...

Working with the information we have available...

[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.

[John V]

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.

No, nothing that you personally call evidence. You don't get to dictate what other people may and may not consider evidence.

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.

As I predicted, the issue is philosophy more than evidence.

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.

Actually I've never read an alien abduction account and am skeptical but agnostic regarding them. I don't consider them further because there's no need to. Same with bigfoot, which others have mentioned. Maybe there's something out there, maybe not. I don't really care. OTOH, religious claims, if true, do impact me.

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.

The Bible is a collection of multiple sources.

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?

I've discussed Islam, which fits those criteria.

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

No, you're apparently not interested, as I've presented other criteria and you pretend like you haven't heard them.

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

Seriously, you're not the only person reading this, and some atheists think that IPU and FSM (which are the same as the gnomes) are hot-shit arguments against Christianity.

[Bad Writer]

If we can't agree upon what can be considered evidence then scientists may as well give up because John says they're doing it wrong. No one is going to placate to your pleas about what you think evidence may or may not be, John. It's the demonstrable substance that leads to facts, so if testimony from anyone is strong enough to fulfill these requirements, then why the fuck aren't you Buddhist or Mormon? If anyone is doing it wrong, then it's you.

[Beta Ray Bill]

If we can't agree upon what can be considered evidence then scientists may as well give up because John says they're doing it wrong. No one is going to placate to your pleas about what you think evidence may or may not be, John. It's the demonstrable substance that leads to facts, so if testimony from anyone is strong enough to fulfill these requirements, then why the fuck aren't you Buddhist or Mormon? If anyone is doing it wrong, then it's you.

Buddhist or Mormon? Those two religions have about as much in common as a jellyfish and an aardvark. Buddhism helped open my mind to reality. The book of Mormon made me laugh.

[Bad Writer]

If we can't agree upon what can be considered evidence then scientists may as well give up because John says they're doing it wrong. No one is going to placate to your pleas about what you think evidence may or may not be, John. It's the demonstrable substance that leads to facts, so if testimony from anyone is strong enough to fulfill these requirements, then why the fuck aren't you Buddhist or Mormon? If anyone is doing it wrong, then it's you.

Buddhist or Mormon? Those two religions have about as much in common as a jellyfish and an aardvark. Buddhism helped open my mind to reality. The book of Mormon made me laugh.

Are you a Buddhist then, or did reject their divine claims the same way you did with Mormonism's?

[FallentoReason]

OK. Christianity is better supported than your gnomes because it seems likely that you just made your testimony up to try to salvage an argument.

By "answer the question" I meant go back to my paragraph where you only responded to the first few sentences.

You're being intellectually dishonest by continually avoiding the question. This isn't worth my time, so I'll once again conclude you're believing blindly, without any justification for why one unverifiable entity exists over any other.

FtR out.

[Bad Writer]

OK. Christianity is better supported than your gnomes because it seems likely that you just made your testimony up to try to salvage an argument.

By "answer the question" I meant go back to my paragraph where you only responded to the first few sentences.

You're being intellectually dishonest by continually avoiding the question. This isn't worth my time, so I'll once again conclude you're believing blindly, without any justification for why one unverifiable entity exists over any other.

FtR out.

The moral of this story is to expect disappointment when dealing with Theists. Always.

[gilbertc06]

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.

But gnomes isn't a made up claim. It is a known claim. Same as the Jersey Devil, Big Foot, Loch ness, and of course the Christian God.

[Brian37]

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

You have none.