Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[Ebionite]

Skeptics tend to understand what is and what is not evidence

I'm skeptical that you have the first clue about objective assessment of the world.

 

[Ebionite]

Dude, between you and I, I am the only one that has ever had a point. You are still batting .000.

Yes, I know you're a *Staff Edit* but I will admit it when I make a mistake.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm skeptical that you have the first clue about objective assessment of the world.

That is only due to your ignorance. People here will gladly help you on that. You have had three people explain to you how we know that good old Ron was a fraud. You have as of yet to show any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I know you're a liar, but I will admit it when I make a mistake.

You very very rarely own up to your mistakes. It is such a pity that you do not understand the meaning of simple three letter words.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can do whatever you want with them.

Really? It seems to me that the only (rational) thing I can do with them, is reject them at face value

I'm just saying that the supernatural is outside the realm of science

Yes. So are undetectable graviton pixies, or anything other that your imagination can produce that is indistinguishable from things that don't exist.

but you want scientific type evidence, verifiable.

What use does evidence have when it is not verifiable?
Is it even evidence, if it is not verifiable?

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

ps: the insistence of "outside of the realm of science" is just a cop-out attempt to defend the fact that there is no valid evidence.
There is absolutely no reason to simply say something is "outside the realm of science" when it comes to entities that either exist or don't.

I suppose that even back after the resurrection you could say the same thing to those who said they saw the risen Jesus.

And I'm sure many did and didn't believe them (if they actually existed and the entire story isn't just made up).
Just like we don't believe alien abductees today.

Skeptics seem to just want to put themselves in a position where no supernatural claims can touch them.

No. We put ourself in a position where we actually get to be rationally justified in the beliefs that we hold.
I don't care what the beliefs are. I don't "want" the supernatural to be real or not.

If there are good reasons to believe X is true, I'll happily believe X is true - regardless of what X is.

Why must it be otherwise? Why must you assume some malicious motive? Is it that hard for you to grasp that I simply don't believe because the supposed evidence doesn't measure up to my standard of evidence?

Then from that position, attack the supernatural and tell everyone that they should not believe anything that has not got verifiable evidence.

I indeed advice people not to be gullible people who simply take things at face value without independent verifiability.

Do you think that is bad advice?

 

[Ebionite]

That is only due to your ignorance. People here will gladly help you on that. You have had three people explain to you how we know that good old Ron was a fraud. You have as of yet to show any evidence to the contrary.

Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.

Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

Like you lied about the proof, you mean? You made the false claim about Ron Wyatt, not me. https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/how-can-you-be-a-true-christian%E2%84%A2-if-you-dont-take-the-eden-story-literally.270747/post-8232486 No. I offered to provide sources if you asked politely...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because veracity is conditional on a getting a paycheck, right?

No.

Because being intellectually honest is step one in presenting results of studies.
Because actually properly supporting your case with verifiable evidence is how you confirm the credibility of your case.

Refusing to do these things is hint numero uno that you are full of bs.

Furthermore, ignoring any and all objections and critic to your claims is hint numero duo.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

I think it's funny how you simply admit that you opperate from an assumed conclusion and approach any and all subject with those biased blinders on.

You probably don't even realize that that is exactly what your post means.

 

[Ebionite]

No.

What you're selling is nothing more than scientism. The scientific method is not conditional on getting a paycheck.

The "proof" that he is a fraud is the total lack of professional publications where he presents his findings to the scientific community.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.

Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

Like you lied about the proof, you mean? You made the false claim about Ron Wyatt, not me. https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/how-can-you-be-a-true-christian%E2%84%A2-if-you-dont-take-the-eden-story-literally.270747/post-8232486 No. I offered to provide sources if you asked politely...

www.religiousforums.com

Of course it is not a lie. And you keep forgetting, that I told you I would give you sources if you were polite. You even quote me saying that. That is how you keep shooting yourself in the foot. When you first rudely demanded evidence for the fact that you believe one of the lamest liars out there that you lost it. You couldn't be polite so I just laughed at your naivety. You couldn't follow the rules. That does not make me a liar.

You could always apologize and I would have explained how archaeology is supposed to be done, and how Ron did not do that. Instead you got butt hurt over reality.

 

[Ebionite]

Of course it is not a lie.

If you were honest you would address the facts rather than issue your standard denial.

And you keep forgetting, that I told you I would give you sources if you were polite.

I haven't forgotten, your tone fallacy is irrelevant to the question of your honesty.

When you first rudely demanded evidence for the fact that you believe one of the lamest liars out there that you lost it.

A demand is appropriate when delivery is due. You don't have the facts that would support that claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you're selling is nothing more than scientism. The scientific method is not conditional on getting a paycheck.

OK, we can add "scientism" and the scientific method to concepts that you do not understand.

How about we discuss the scientific method first? If you understood that and could be honest with yourself you would understand how Ron was a fraud.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you were honest you would address the facts rather than issue your standard denial.

They were addressed. You ignored them. @joelr addressed them.. You ignored him. @TagliatelliMonster addressed them. You ignored him.

I haven't forgotten, your tone fallacy is irrelevant to the question of your honesty.

LOL!! There is no "tone fallacy". I find you highly amusing.

A demand is appropriate when delivery is due. You don't have the facts that would support that claim.

No, you were given the facts. You ignored or did not understand them.

At this point your inability to understand the facts is your problem.

 

[Brian2]

I think it's funny how you simply admit that you opperate from an assumed conclusion and approach any and all subject with those biased blinders on.

You probably don't even realize that that is exactly what your post means.

My faith is not something that has any bearing on most subjects.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My faith is not something that has any bearing on most subjects.

It may be getting in the way of reasoning rationally in this matter. At least that is the way that it looks right now.

 

[Ebionite]

They were addressed. You ignored them. @joelr addressed them.. You ignored him. @TagliatelliMonster addressed them. You ignored him.


LOL!! There is no "tone fallacy". I find you highly amusing.

No, you were given the facts. You ignored or did not understand them.

At this point your inability to understand the facts is your problem.

You're getting boring now. Same old condescension and dishonesty, nothing new here.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You're both getting boring. It's like watching kindergarteners at a playground.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're getting boring now. Same old condescension and dishonesty, nothing new here.

That is because you refuse to learn from your mistakes. Try being honest. And try to learn. People will treat you quite differently. But if one acts like a jerk that person will be treated as one.

You really could benefit from learning what the scientific method is. Are you interested in starting again?

 

[Brian2]

Why must it be otherwise? Why must you assume some malicious motive? Is it that hard for you to grasp that I simply don't believe because the supposed evidence doesn't measure up to my standard of evidence?

Is it that hard for you to grasp that I don't care what you believe, but don't try to force your beliefs on me.

I indeed advice people not to be gullible people who simply take things at face value without independent verifiability.

Do you think that is bad advice?

That is indeed good advice most of the time.
When is comes to belief in God it is no more than you telling people that God is not real.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're both getting boring. It's like watching kindergarteners at a playground.

I know sorry about that. I have offered an olive branch.