• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
It is not a matter of it being "liked" it is a matter of it being reliable. If you only have garbage sources then you have to have a garbage arguent as a result. Or in other words GIGO. There are standards for evidence in various fields and for very good reasons. The only "evidence" that I do not like is evidence that is worthless.
Click to expand...

What is worthless evidence in your opinion?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ebionite said:
No, you have a problem with lying. Fraud is not the same as being rejected by orthodoxy.

How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

That does not help you. Do I have to give the posts in order. You really are not worth the bother. You were told to be polite before you asked for sources. Here is a link to the post where you quoted me warning you. Read your quote of me. It tells you that you have to be polite...
www.religiousforums.com
Click to expand...
Oh my. Still having a difficult time with the meaning of words. And no, the fact that Wyatt was a fraud had nothing to do with the rejection of orthodoxy. Why do you get so butt hurt over the fact that Wyatt was a fake?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Brian2 said:
I thought you were offering sound advice until I got to the last 2 words.
Click to expand...
Why? Because the truth hurts? Present your supposed evidence. People will tell you if it is unreliable and why, that is if your 'evidence' is at all what you have indicated that it will be.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Ebionite said:
Yeah, @Subduction Zone couldn't cope with proof either.
Click to expand...
The "proof" that he is a fraud is the total lack of professional publications where he presents his findings to the scientific community.
The total lack of even only an attempt at being credible.

That is what "the eating" represents.

Science is very results based. Wyatt's results are non-existent.
There is nothing there but fantastical claims (that have been shown lacking, dishonest, unprofessional and just hot air on multiple occasions).

We know he's a fraud in the same way we know astrologists are frauds.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Brian2 said:
What is worthless evidence in your opinion?
Click to expand...
There are countless examples. And of course it depends upon the claim. If a friend of yours that loves dogs told you "I just bought a puppy!". That alone would probably convince you. If the same friend told you " I bought a flying car!" you would probably need some more evidence before you believed that person.
 
Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
TagliatelliMonster said:
Scientific evidence is the verifiable kind.
That's my standard.

If you make unfalsifiable claims, or in other words: untestable claims, then what do you expect me to do with them?
Click to expand...

You can do whatever you want with them. I'm just saying that the supernatural is outside the realm of science but you want scientific type evidence, verifiable.

TagliatelliMonster said:
I can't test them, i can't verifiy their truth value. There is no way to distinguish them from false claims.

What reason would I have to believe such a claim?
Click to expand...

No reason if you expect verifiable evidence of things outside the realm of science.

TagliatelliMonster said:
Sorry but when you make extra-ordinary claims, you should understand that it won't just be believed at face value.
You will require some good evidence. The more extra-ordinary the claims, the better the evidence would have to be.

And yes, to me, evidence must be of the verifiable kind.
That's my standard of evidence.

If it's not verifiable, what use does it have? Is it even evidence then? Is it then not just another claim?
Click to expand...

I suppose that even back after the resurrection you could say the same thing to those who said they saw the risen Jesus.
Skeptics seem to just want to put themselves in a position where no supernatural claims can touch them.
Then from that position, attack the supernatural and tell everyone that they should not believe anything that has not got verifiable evidence.
 
Ebionite

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
You have earned a condescending attitude, so it is a bit hypocritical to complain, and I have been honest.
Click to expand...
It's you nothing you earn, and I've been documenting your dishonesty.

How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

That does not help you. Do I have to give the posts in order. You really are not worth the bother. You were told to be polite before you asked for sources. Here is a link to the post where you quoted me warning you. Read your quote of me. It tells you that you have to be polite...
www.religiousforums.com
 
Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
joelr said:
So you consider it history that Muhammad was visited by an angel and given a new version of Christianity? It's History that Joseph Smith was given serious updates on Christianity and Jesus by the angel Moroni? Both have primary sources and witnesses, Christianity has none except a man who claimed visions. But the Quran and Mormon Bible are on much stronger footing. Why don't you convert then?
We also have Bahai with many witnesses and many writings, an extention of Islam. Far stronger so you must consider them all historical. Since they are updates (the NT is also an update) you should be taking them very serious if you don't have a supernatural bias.


The "supernatural bias" doesn't just work when you need it.
Click to expand...

Yes they have their records and I have my entitlement to believe or not, as I see fit.
I already believe I have been led to Jesus by God and from here I view things through the eyes of faith in Jesus, just as you view things through a different faith.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ebionite said:
It's you nothing you earn, and I've been documenting your dishonesty.

How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

That does not help you. Do I have to give the posts in order. You really are not worth the bother. You were told to be polite before you asked for sources. Here is a link to the post where you quoted me warning you. Read your quote of me. It tells you that you have to be polite...
www.religiousforums.com
Click to expand...
Really then why do you keep linking old arguments that you lost?

You appear to be very confused.
 
Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Why? Because the truth hurts? Present your supposed evidence. People will tell you if it is unreliable and why, that is if your 'evidence' is at all what you have indicated that it will be.
Click to expand...

I have presented evidence before which has been rejected by skeptics who seem to be on this forum for that purpose, to say that evidence for the supernatural is worthless, to spread their faith in their particular world view.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Brian2 said:
I have presented evidence before which has been rejected by skeptics who seem to be on this forum for that purpose, to say that evidence for the supernatural is worthless, to spread their faith in their particular world view.
Click to expand...
Then it probably is garbage evidence. Skeptics tend to understand what is and what is not evidence. Did you ask what was wrong with it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top