Show me definitive proof your religious text isn't entirely made up.

[allfoak]

That there isn't much, and the little that is there has already been stripped from religious texts long ago, and applied in more useful ways.

So you think they should be historically correct to be of value?
Christians rely on the historical accuracy because their jesus god would not be a valid if he didn't live the life they say he lived.
The Christian message however is without power.
It saves no one.

Understanding why many of these texts were written and why someone took such care creating them is something you might want to consider.
They thought they were so valuable that they hid them for future generations to find.

 

[dust1n]

So you think they should be historically correct to be of value?
Christians rely on the historical accuracy because their jesus god would not be a valid if he didn't live the life they say he lived.
The Christian message however is without power.
It saves no one.

There are books of which I've read that are entirely made up that were of immense value.

Understanding why many of these texts were written and why someone took such care creating them and thought they were so valuable they hid them for future generations to find is something you might want to consider.

Can could I understand such a thing when the majority of the texts unknown authors. As far as why people took care of it later, I assume because they believed to be true and worth immense value.

 

[allfoak]

What difference does it make who wrote them?

 

[leibowde84]

What difference does it make who wrote them?

It is a valid way to determine the credibility if said texts. Only, of course, when our salvation is dependent on belief in said text.

 

[Desert Snake]

Evidence is convincing as long as it can be verified. If not, it is usually just speculation.

Yes, I consider your position to be speculation.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, I consider your position to be speculation.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you kindly provide an explanation?

 

[Desert Snake]

Evidence is convincing as long as it can be verified. If not, it is usually just speculation.

.........

Yes, I consider your position to be speculation.

..............

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you kindly provide an explanation?

Huh? I consider your position to be speculation. It isn't verified, you have to prove otherwise, as far as I'm concerned. What isn't clear about that? If your position is not speculation, then you would know how to argue your side/opinion.

 

[leibowde84]

.........


..............


Huh? I consider your position to be speculation. It isn't verified, you have to prove otherwise, as far as I'm concerned. What isn't clear about that? If your position is not speculation, then you would know how to argue your side/opinion.

I said that "evidence must be verified". Positions are verified through verifiable evidence.

What evidence in particular would you like me to provide verification for?

 

[leibowde84]

.........


..............


Huh? I consider your position to be speculation. It isn't verified, you have to prove otherwise, as far as I'm concerned. What isn't clear about that? If your position is not speculation, then you would know how to argue your side/opinion.

Also, what "position" in particular? My position on known logical fallacies like an "argument from ignorance"? Because, I am happy to support my claim that support based on logical fallacies is fraudulent.

 

[Desert Snake]

Also, what "position" in particular? My position on known logical fallacies like an "argument from ignorance"? Because, I am happy to support my claim that support based on logical fallacies is fraudulent.

that is not an argument.

 

[allfoak]

It is a valid way to determine the credibility if said texts. Only, of course, when our salvation is dependent on belief in said text.

The authorship of most religious texts is unknowable.
This leaves us with either worthless parchment or a need to view them from a different perspective.

 

[leibowde84]

Vague; this is not an argument.

It's called a "question". What position were you referring to? Was it the one referenced in my last comment?

 

[leibowde84]

this is not an argument.

Just so we are clear, I never intend to make claims when I ask questions. If I want to make a claim, I will do so clearly. Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's called a "question". What position were you referring to? Was it the one referenced in my last comment?

The question has no relevance to anything, as you did not equate the idea to anything. Yes, it's a question, not an argument. They're different things.

 

[leibowde84]

The authorship of most religious texts is unknowable.
This leaves us with either worthless parchment or a need to view them from a different perspective.

Or... Just take them with a grain of salt like every other historical text. They are incorrect from time to time.

 

[Desert Snake]

Just so we are clear, I never intend to make claims when I ask questions. If I want to make a claim, I will do so clearly. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Nothing is stopping you from making claims.

 

[McBell]

that is not an argument.

Thank you captain obvious.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to answer the questions?

Or are you content looking the fool?

 

[leibowde84]

The question has no relevance to anything, as you did not equate the ide to anything. Yes, it's a question, not an argument. They're different things.

So, can you answer the question you acknowledge now?

 

[leibowde84]

Thank you captain obvious.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to answer the questions?

Or are you content looking the fool?

Well-put. That was blatantly self-contradictory.

 

[leibowde84]

Nothing is stopping you from making claims.

See, this makes no sense. I have acknowledged making many claims. I am simply pointing out that a question is not a claim.