The real religion?

[Edwardo Piet]

That isn't interesting at all.

Plants often grow faster on horseshit, does that make the horseshit interesting? No, it's still horseshit.

[Iroscato]

McDonald's is relatively cheap, easy, convenient and stuffed with sugar and salt to trick your brain into thinking it's enjoyable. It's also incredibly popular. Does this mean it's in any way healthy or good for you? Fuck no.

History is littered with popular beliefs, fads and indeed religions that exploded into popularity and then faded. Islam and Christianity will ultimately be no different than the pagan faiths of the past, and will be lost down the same hole as all others - time.

Tick tock, tick tock, motherfuckers...

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah fuck all religions in the ear. They does haz a silly.

[LadyForCamus]

First, you clipped out my second sentence: 
While they are used by science, they are also used in a number of different fields: philosophy (reason, logic, philosophy of mind, etc.), social sciences, mathematics, as well as intuitively used a thousands times every day by people (if I do x then my wife will do y). 
No reply to that? You still think these terms apply only to science? Then tell me why this particular sentence is wrong.
Second, when you make a point and I reply (with reasons why I believe my point to be true) and then you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty is an unjustified leap and seems more like you don't know how to respond. Attacking one's character is pretty low.

Steve, when you make a truth claim about something, especially something as extraordinary as a personal relationship with a deity, you are automatically pushing that claim into the scrutinizing light of science, whether you like it or not.  

I am not disputing those words are used in other fields of study (though I may dispute that they suddenly mean something different in the way that you're implying).  I am disputing you incorrectly stating that they are "not scientific words."   You used those words with a very specific connotation; with very scientific implications that your truth claim is indisputably TRUE, and then backed out immediately when I held you to it.

So, are you saying that there is scientific evidence, and then there is that "other" kind of evidence?  That there is scientific proof, and then that "other" kind of proof?  Could you elaborate?  It reminds me a lot of Wooters and his category B "knowledge."   Or Ken Ham and his "historical science versus observational science" bull crap.  

[LadyForCamus]

Why must I have 'corroborating scientific evidence'?

So you don't feel I am ignoring your points:

Why must you have scientific evidence to corroborate the claim that people interact daily with an otherwise undetectable deity? Are you really asking me this? Watch Rob's video for a more detailed and eloquent answer, but my answer is: why WOULDN'T you demand such evidence for yourself before believing in something so extraordinary?!

How does examining and coming to conclusions about anything that has to do with the mind, emotions, human experiences, love, suffering, self-sacrifice, hope, etc. etc. have anything to do with being corroborated by scientific evidence?

Because you can't really come to any objective conclusion about those things without it. You're welcome to all of your feelings and thoughts, but without a scientific framework to back up an objective truth claim about an experience ("my experience is a direct reflection of my personal relationship with the Christian God of the bible") then that experience remains purely subjective; the alleged cause is essentially unprovable.

While I do not believe this to be the case, it could be that God only reveals himself to us as one mind to another. How would you go about corroborating that?

I never could, which is one reason why I don't believe in God. [emoji39]

[Crossless2.0]

In the end, even apologists with the best of intentions become second-rate sophists. It's the nature of the game they have chosen to play.

[SteveII]

First, you clipped out my second sentence: 
While they are used by science, they are also used in a number of different fields: philosophy (reason, logic, philosophy of mind, etc.), social sciences, mathematics, as well as intuitively used a thousands times every day by people (if I do x then my wife will do y). 
No reply to that? You still think these terms apply only to science? Then tell me why this particular sentence is wrong.
Second, when you make a point and I reply (with reasons why I believe my point to be true) and then you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty is an unjustified leap and seems more like you don't know how to respond. Attacking one's character is pretty low.

Steve, when you make a truth claim about something, especially something as extraordinary as a personal relationship with a deity, you are automatically pushing that claim into the scrutinizing light of science, whether you like it or not.  

That does not follow. Why would personal testimony of a relationship with a supernatural being (by definition beyond nature) land you on a naturalistic examination table? Science has nothing at all to do with whether God exists. You are letting your scientism affect your reasoning. 

I am not disputing those words are used in other fields of study (though I may dispute that they suddenly mean something different in the way that you're implying).  I am disputing you incorrectly stating that they are "not scientific words."   You used those words with a very specific connotation; with very scientific implications that your truth claim is indisputably TRUE, and then backed out immediately when I held you to it.

So, are you're saying that there is scientific evidence, and then there is that "other" kind of evidence?  That there is scientific proof, and then that "other" kind of proof?  Could you elaborate?  It reminds me a lot of Wooters and his category B "knowledge."   Or Ken Ham and his "historical science versus observational science" bull crap.  

I am asking why a person's (or a billion people's) testimony isn't evidence of something being true? If I end up in court, my testimony is evidence of things I witnessed. If someone else testifies they witnessed the same thing, we start to work toward "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". No science involved. 

There are other ways to arrive at knowledge than just science. There are metaphysical truths, there are moral truths, there are mathematical truths. In fact science rests on many philosophical assumptions that it cannot operate without. I am saying that a person can have a properly basic belief (having good internal reasons without requiring outside proof) about a relationship with God and therefore is rational/justified in that belief.

[LadyForCamus]

Actually, to Rob, this would be a perfect segway to your, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence " video if you have it to share here.

Sure This one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX7mdUh9yUE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOrP9nb-yrk

That's the one!

[Crossless2.0]

I knew it was just a matter of time before Plantinga slithered out from beneath the rocks.

[SteveII]

Regarding the old (and tired) Humean argument of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", while it sound like common sense, it is actually demonstrably false.

While the actual argument in the article does not have to do with what we are discussing, some have brought it up the evidence argument.  WLC commenting on Stephen Law's argument where his primary premise was "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence":

Probability theorists studying what sort of evidence it would take to establish a highly improbable event came to realize that if you just weigh the improbability of the event against the reliability of the testimony, we’d have to be sceptical of many commonly accepted claims. Rather what’s crucial is the probability that we should have the evidence we do if the extraordinary event had not occurred. This can easily offset any improbability of the event itself.


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/stephen-l...z4H2pq2SLR

I have yet to hear a good rebuttal of this.