Satan Disproves Christianity

[gilbertc06]

And you don't think there were any motives for the creation of christianity?

Of course I think there were motives. For Paul, the claimed motive was a vision on the road to Damascus, and the records of his life are consistent with that claim. He was already a rising star in the main religion of his people, so he had much to lose by adopting the upstart religion, and he did suffer for it. That indicates that he believed that the message he had received was true. That doesn't prove that the message was true, of course, but having the messenger believe it is the rational minimum requirement for me to consider it. I'm guessing that your gnome believers (if they exist) would repent of their beliefs if threatened with 39 lashes.

Oh there are many people today that would not reject their beliefs just because of lashing. And that's not counting beliefs of religion.

[John V]

Oh there are many people today that would not reject their beliefs just because of lashing. And that's not counting beliefs of religion.

Do you have evidence that gnome believers (who haven't been identified yet) would not deny the gnomes if faced with physical punishment?

[Bad Writer]

John, you obviously reject the notion of the damn Gnomes, so use this same method of reasoning against your own religion and see where that leads.

[gilbertc06]

John, you obviously reject the notion of the damn Gnomes, so use this same method of reasoning against your own religion and see where that leads.

He can't because he has bought into the fallacies and can't see them for what they are. People can accept burning to death for an ideology. That does not make it true.

He doesn't seem to know the difference between valid and fallacious arguments and even if he did he would not be able to apply it to his own religion.

[John V]

He can't because he has bought into the fallacies and can't see them for what they are. People can accept burning to death for an ideology. That does not make it true.

Of course not, as I noted myself: "That doesn't prove that the message was true, of course." But, it's certainly a differentiator. If the claimant himself doesn't believe the claim, rational people aren't going to consider it further.

He doesn't seem to know the difference between valid and fallacious arguments and even if he did he would not be able to apply it to his own religion.

I applied the valid argument above to my religion and to these alleged gnomes, and my religion fared better. You're mad because your argument isn't very good, and you thought it was. It's that simple. Heck, now you're to talking to the board cheerleader instead of to me directly.

[Bad Writer]

As opposed to rooting for the Invisible Sky Daddy? I'll take the cheerleader remark as a compliment, for I'm not the idiot that believes in an easily falsifiable 2000 year-old story book. You're a veritable fool.

[gilbertc06]

If the claimant himself doesn't believe the claim, rational people aren't going to consider it further.

Rational people dismiss the whole thing entirely unless the claimer gives evidence. The claimer can wholeheartedly believe something. Unless he provides evidence it isn't considered any further.

I applied the valid argument above to my religion and to these alleged gnomes, and my religion fared better.

You have done no such thing. Like you said yourself, accepting physical punishment for a belief does not make it valid. Just because someone actually has done so in your belief and none has done it in the gnome belief only chalks up one more idiot to your religion than the gnome believers. Bravo.

You're mad because your argument isn't very good, and you thought it was.

What argument are you talking about? I have no stake in the gnome claim. I think it is just as ridiculous as your god claim. Both groups have given no good reason to believe either of them is true. Whereas you are trying to somehow prove your god claim without any evidence (two thousand or so years in pending) and also trying to debunk the gnome claim that has about the same unstable structure as yours.

It's that simple. Heck, now you're to talking to the board cheerleader instead of to me directly.

Because you continue to dodge questions and or don't give sufficient answers at all.

[John V]

Rational people dismiss the whole thing entirely unless the claimer gives evidence. The claimer can wholeheartedly believe something. Unless he provides evidence it isn't considered any further.

Yes, and testimony is evidence. We assess, among other things, motivation of those offering testimony. So far we haven't heard testimony re: gnomes, but there is testimony re: god in the Bible.

You have done no such thing. Like you said yourself, accepting physical punishment for a belief does not make it valid. Just because someone actually has done so in your belief and none has done it in the gnome belief only chalks up one more idiot to your religion than the gnome believers. Bravo.

Again, while refusal to recant a claim in the face of negative consequences does not prove the claim, it does make it stronger than a claim which is quickly recanted.

What argument are you talking about?

The argument that there's no difference in support for grass-growing gnomes and the god of the Bible.

[gilbertc06]

Yes, and testimony is evidence. We assess, among other things, motivation of those offering testimony. So far we haven't heard testimony re: gnomes, but there is testimony re: god in the Bible.

No. Testimony needs to be backed up by evidence. It alone cannot stand as evidence.

Again, while refusal to recant a claim in the face of negative consequences does not prove the claim, it does make it stronger than a claim which is quickly recanted.

Nope. If it makes a difference to you that is personal. Objectively it makes no difference.

The argument that there's no difference in support for grass-growing gnomes and the god of the Bible.

And so far you have not done anything to differentiate the actual claims. You have only criticized the claimers to justify your belief in it in one way or another. That is a fallacy.

[Airyaman]

If testimony is all that is required, then alien abductions are indeed real.