The real religion?

[SteveII]

Lol, so you're going to play an idiot rather than admit you were wrong?  

No talking about Steve.  No talking about bible claims (yet.  We'll get there.)  YOU insisted on belaboring the point that we are strictly talking about the reliability of witness testimony, and it's weight as evidence.  

Your position regarding testimony and evidence, applied to the Mandela Effect, would be that that many, MANY people testifying to a parallel universe slip is 'sufficient evidence' beyond a reasonable doubt that such a phenomenon is ACTUALLY happening.  

No further evidence or testing required.  People said so, and that many people couldn't be wrong, or be lying.  Right?  Stay focused, RR.  You can do this.

Conversations and discussions work a whole lot better when you don't call the other person names and end posts dripping with condescension. Just saying...

BTW, in your Mandela Effect example, no one is 'testifying' of a parallel universe slip. Someone threw that out as a possible explanation of bad memories. The two ideas cannot be connected (as the author clearly said).

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, so you're going to play an idiot rather than admit you were wrong?  

No talking about Steve.  No talking about bible claims (yet.  We'll get there.)  YOU insisted on belaboring the point that we are strictly talking about the reliability of witness testimony, and it's weight as evidence.  

Your position regarding testimony and evidence, applied to the Mandela Effect, would be that that many, MANY people testifying to a parallel universe slip is 'sufficient evidence' beyond a reasonable doubt that such a phenomenon is ACTUALLY happening.  

No further evidence or testing required.  People said so, and that many people couldn't be wrong, or be lying.  Right?  Stay focused, RR.  You can do this.

Conversations and discussions work a whole lot better when you don't call the other person names and end posts dripping with condescension. Just saying...

BTW, in your Mandela Effect example, no one is 'testifying' of a parallel universe slip. Someone threw that out as a possible explanation of bad memories. The two ideas cannot be connected (as the author clearly said).

Oh, PLENTY of people testify to parallel universes being the ONLY explanation, because the thought of such an ingrained memory being wrong is extremely uncomfortable for many. Look a little deeper into the phenomenon. It's actually quite fascinating, and terrifying what people are willing to believe rather than accepting a psychologically uncomfortable truth.

As an aside...I wasn't calling RR an idiot, I was accusing him of pretending to be one. [emoji39]

[RoadRunner79]

I'll bite.... Your link and the descriptions seem reasonable (concerning the mandela effect).  So how do we apply this?

In context, which of Steve's questions above, do you think more closely resembles the mandela effect?  We all make mistakes, or remember something a little off.... at times.  Some may be better at realizing that their memory is foggy in an area than others.  Are scientist subject to the mandela effect as well or do the magic "tests and data" make them immune?

Lol, so you're going to play an idiot rather than admit you were wrong?  

No talking about Steve.  No talking about bible claims.  YOU insisted on belaboring the point that we are strictly talking about the reliability of witness testimony, and it's weight as evidence.  

I'm just responding within the conversation.  To your question about the mandela effect, and the immediate context of what you quoted from Steve?    I'm getting a little tire of you attacking me, rather than answering any questions or having a conversation.   I even invited you to ask me questions about a particular instance in regards to the conversation (It can be about the Bible if you like).  

Your position regarding testimony and evidence, applied to the Mandela Effect, would be that that many, MANY people testifying to a parallel universe slip is 'sufficient evidence' beyond a reasonable doubt that such a phenomenon is ACTUALLY happening.  

No further evidence or testing required.  People said so, and that many people couldn't be wrong, or be lying.  Right?  If you don't believe that parallel universe slips are happening, than you are ignoring valid evidence.  Stay focused, RR.  You can do this.

To what testimony are you referring concerning Parallel universe slips? I had seen a theory involving that, but not much reasoning (or any testimony) in the article.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Atheism is not a religion. Or so I've been told.

Well, atheism really has no content. But if an atheist embraces many of the Buddhist tenets and indulges in Buddhist practice, is that then a religion?

Any practice that does not have Divinity as its object is not a religious one no matter how similar its trappings. I say 'zen' meditation is in the same categorey as exercise yoga.

[Expired]

Well, atheism really has no content. But if an atheist embraces many of the Buddhist tenets and indulges in Buddhist practice, is that then a religion?

Any practice that does not have Divinity as its object is not a religious one no matter how similar its trappings. I say 'zen' meditation is in the same categorey as exercise yoga.

Any practice that requires an adult to turn his or her brain off, I say is pathetic.

[brewer]

From what I'm reading they don't even know who wrote some of the NT, they are just attributed to. According to wiki/new testament (According to many (if not most) critical scholars, none of the authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses or even explicitly claimed to be eyewitnesses). John (not author) Matthew (copies of copies, no chance of original accuracy) Luke (written like a 3 part play) It sounds like that argument does not hold wine.

I don't care if they contain a different theme or message. You did not use that in any prior position.

Thomas didn't know jesus? Written as early as 40 AD? NT dates from 50 to 150. Peter didn't know jesus? James didn't know jesus?

I think the the early churches and people supported/believed them. Isn't that one of your supporting positions for the NT?

You have done nothing to support your position(s). Just another believe what I say theist. Stop wasting our time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

The Matthew, Mark and John editors compiled earlier docs and information from a particular group of people who followed the apostle for which it was named. The author of Luke/Acts was not an eyewitness either but set about to write and orderly account--including speaking to eyewitnesses. 

Most scholars do not think Thomas the aposle wrote the Gospel of Thomas. Additionally, the early church did not think was an accurate list of sayings because it has at least 31 sayings that do not have parallels in other writings. 

Peter, James and John are all eyewitnesses and all wrote books of the accepted NT canon. 

Which parts do you think is just me saying "believe what I say" :

1. The first NT documents were letters written to churches who already believed the overall theme of Christianity. So now we have two pieces of evidence: multiple churches existed throughout the Roman empire by 50AD and the documents written to them--believing the same thing about Jesus. 
2. From your link, we also have documents that pre-date the gospels from which the gospels we have (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) referred to --written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. So now we have 3-4 other pieces of evidence to add to the fact that people believed the content just following Jesus' death. 
3. We have the gospels themselves written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. More evidence for what people believed to be true. 

The only evidence we will every get of events like this that happened in the first century is written. We can quite reasonably infer from the multiple sources of evidence that a large group of people (including the authors of the NT) believed what was written because they witnessed or knew and believed the witnesses of the events. 

These facts make the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus the most attested to series of events in ancient history.

So some, not all, of the NT were not written by those attributed to them (unknown author) yet you accept and defend them. Thomas (unknown author) was written as early as 40AD but that you reject that. What if the unknown author "compiled earlier docs and information from a particular group of people who followed the apostle for which it was named"? Plus, how do you know and prove that your quoted position is even true?  The authors are unknown. You can't possibly know that they followed a particular apostle. And "31 sayings that do not have parallels in other writings" makes it not true? The author couldn't include unique material that he learned? He had to be a plagiarist like the authors of Matthew and Luke?

Theme of christianity? Sounds like you're discussion something not completely accurate or trustworthy but close enough for government work.

Wow, underlined. Must make me believe it. Nice effect.

I'm tired of you. Good bye.

[Angrboda]

Well, atheism really has no content. But if an atheist embraces many of the Buddhist tenets and indulges in Buddhist practice, is that then a religion?

Any practice that does not have Divinity as its object is not a religious one no matter how similar its trappings. I say 'zen' meditation is in the same categorey as exercise yoga.

Oh how convenient.

[bennyboy]

You seem to think that we are asking the disciples if they remember the color of Jesus' sweatshirt two weeks ago Friday. We are talking about seeing a man you had been with for several years die a horrible death and then appear to them 3 days later and then stick around for 40 more days. Do you think it remotely possible that hundreds of people were mistaken about such a thing?

I think it's possible that if the whole story is even about a real person, there was a lot of dupery going on. Why is it that Jesus wasn't recognized after his resurrection? Had he changed his hair style? Bought a new toga? Gone in for bitchin' new tattoos? How about this: because Jesus was killed, and some dude punched holes in his hand to pretend he was Jesus? That would readily explain why he wasn't easily recognized by these people who spent "years with him."

And that's assuming the whole story isn't just made up by a group of spiritualists who created an archetypal leader from myths well-established in other religious traditions of the day. Show me these hundreds of witnesses, and more importantly their written accounts. Show me, in particular, someone who would be antithetical to Jesus, like maybe a Roman magistrate, who even demonstrates a vague knowledge of his existence. Show me the written records of Pontius Pilate, for example.

[Edwardo Piet]

Who was this Pontitus guy anyway?

[Arkilogue]

Well, atheism really has no content. But if an atheist embraces many of the Buddhist tenets and indulges in Buddhist practice, is that then a religion?

Any practice that does not have Divinity as its object is not a religious one no matter how similar its trappings. I say 'zen' meditation is in the same categorey as exercise yoga.

How do you objectify the Deity?