The real religion?

[Edwardo Piet]

Steve.

[LadyForCamus]

Well, Steve hasn't responded to me once. That's an admission of defeat if I've ever seen one. He can't handle my rebuttals.

Your arguments are far too advanced and logically sound! [emoji1]

[Jesster]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

Read that, Steve. This is why we don't buy the claim that the NT is good for humanity. Well, that and the fact that we just don't believe it's true.

[Edwardo Piet]

This one will get him, it's a three-combo foolproof sucker-punch:

Steve.

[Edwardo Piet]

The Argument from Eddie Murphy as a Donkey:

Steve.

[LadyForCamus]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

Read that, Steve. This is why we don't buy the claim that the NT is good for humanity. Well, that and the fact that we just don't believe it's true.

Nice share; thank you! I'm currently watching "The Bible Reloaded" series on YouTube. Hugo and Jake are a lot of fun!

[Angrboda]

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.

This is pure hogwash. All he's done is repackage the extraordinary claims maxim to make it sound like it supports his position. It's nothing more than semantic tom foolery. 'Probability theorists' have long recognized that this is a problem of Type I statistical error, not Type II, as Craig implies. When dealing with extraordinary claims it is perfectly reasonable to demand greater confidence intervals in the result. That's all it says, and it's a well respected principle of science. That's why you have different confidence intervals in the physical sciences than in the medical sciences. That Craig wants to beg out of standard scientific principles is understandable, but hardly acceptable.

[brewer]

They have bearing. You asked "What negatives are there in NT Christianity?" This is what is in the NT. They are negative. To pick only the nicey verses is, let's see, maybe in your terms, to bear false witness.

I don't know what you think these verses mean. By your context, it seems you think they mean something other than they do. You will have to look at the verses in context and then tell me what you think they mean for me to reply.

They mean what they mean, they are negative. Playing the ignorance card is so childish. Expected as much. I'm out.

[Edwardo Piet]

Steve needs to be more mature, for sure.

Steve...

[SteveII]

You are still treating the question as if it was a lab experiment. You probably don't espouse scientism as your worldview so admit there are other methods than science of gaining knowledge. A person's self-reported intuition is one of those other methods.  A billion peoples self-reported intuition is even better.

It comes down to this, Steve:  your "metaphysical" claims are either subject to scrutiny or not.  If they aren't, then the discussion is over.  It all comes down to faith.  /thread.  If you think that they are, and you enter what you believe to be "good evidence" for this claim into the discussion, then be prepared to have that evidence critiqued for quality in the same way we would critique any other worldly claim.

The question of whether we should believe someone who says they have a relationship with God is not a metaphysical claim either. You still are failing to answer the simple question of why we shouldn't take a billion people's word for it that they have a relationship with God and therefore evidence for God? I have shown that your last answer "because it can't be scientifically proven" was not a good answer. If your answer is now something like: there is no other evidence for God, then you reasoning is circular. While I think there is certainly other evidence for God, it only serves to strengthen the hypothesis that if a billion people have a relationship with God, then God exists but is not necessary for it. 

I don't know anything about the Mandela Effect.

Sure, and why bother looking it up, right?  Afraid you'll learn something that might cast a different light on your dedication to personal testimony?  Typical willful ignorance...

That was not the point. Since you obviously cannot claim science is the only source of knowledge you cannot claim something to be false simply because you can't examine it in a lab. Find another reason to say that God does not exist and/or people do not have relationships with God.

I'm sorry; did I stutter?  

1. Never claimed "science is the only source of knowledge."  

2. Never claimed "God is false because you can't study him in a lab."  Also, I'm not sure what that means.

3. I am not providing you with reasons God doesn't exist.

YOU made a claim - 'God exists, and people experience a personal relationship with him.'

You provided what you think is "evidence" for your claim.  I'm saying your evidence sucks; it's not evidence.  I provided you with factual reasons why the evidence sucks.  Therefore you have not adequately made a case for the claim.

I did not make the claim 'God exists, and people experience a personal relationship with him.' I have asked over and over why if a billion people claim to have a relationship with God, why is that not evidence for God? Big difference. I have no claim to defend because I do not have any premises in dispute. You continue to claim that one does not follow from the other yet I still have yet to get a good answer to support your claim. 

That's not an argument against a specific belief. You need to provide a specific reason why a billion people's experience is false and not just say 'experiences can be false, therefore this one is false'. 

You are strawmanning the shit out of me.  See above.

The NT contained actual events that happened in the natural world

THIS IS A CLAIM.   NOT evidence.   face palm*

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is a different subject that I address in another post.