Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That would entirely depend on the evidence you present and what form it takes. So I can not help you there. Again you have to let us know what evidence you think you have to support your conclusions and we can take it from there.
I can tell you how I will evaluate it from the outset though. Not a hard and fast list but a general guideline:
1) I would check first the evidence is actual evidence and not second and third hand reporting of evidence. Something I can actually view myself and evaluate or consider or in some way access in a form that is amenable to reason.
2) I would run it through "fallacy checks" to see if it fits any of the known fallacies such as "confirmation bias" or "Argumentum ad populum" or "Appeal to authority" and so forth.
From that point on, if it makes it this far, what I do next will be context dependent.
And in the meantime, you will continue to reject any evidence that favors Christianity like your disregard of archaelogy. You are no longer worth my time.
And in the meantime, you will continue to reject any evidence that favors Christianity
What do you mean "continue"? I have not been given any and hence I have not rejected any. When I am given some then we can talk. As I said however many times to you, citing unexplained events is not evidence for anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWD39
like your disregard of archaelogy.
I never once disregarded. You are just making up things now to "hit and run". I think it a great field of research indeed and know more about it than you might expect. No, what I said was simply that using Archaeology... to show that some places and structures mentioned in the bible actually exist... does not evidence the claim that the events in the bible are true.
More than that I never said and you are just putting words in my mouth to straw man my actual position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWD39
You are no longer worth my time.
Oh good. Another opportunity to test out "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet forum posting" which states "The Probability of any given user posting again increases in proportion to any indication they give they will not be doing so".
What do you mean "continue"? I have not been given any and hence I have not rejected any. When I am given some then we can talk. As I said however many times to you, citing unexplained events is not evidence for anything.
I presented the evidence, you rejected it immediately. Not much more complicated than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
I never once disregarded. You are just making up things now to "hit and run". I think it a great field of research indeed and know more about it than you might expect. No, what I said was simply that using Archaeology... to show that some places and structures mentioned in the bible actually exist... does not evidence the claim that the events in the bible are true.
Completely untrue. The moment you started comparing Bible archaeology to Jason Bourne was the moment you threw out archaeology as a valid means to prove the Bible. I tried to be rational and explained again and again that your fiction examples can easily be traced to their origins, but apparently that concept sailed over your cranium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Oh good. Another opportunity to test out "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet forum posting" which states "The Probability of any given user posting again increases in proportion to any indication they give they will not be doing so".
I presented the evidence, you rejected it immediately. Not much more complicated than that.
Completely untrue. The moment you started comparing Bible archaeology to Jason Bourne was the moment you threw out archaeology as a valid means to prove the Bible. I tried to be rational and explained again and again that your fiction examples can easily be traced to their origins, but apparently that concept sailed over your cranium.
Just another arrogant atheist. Next.
Congratulations, you've finally sunken to the level of Sir Les and Mickiel, not to be taken seriously, simply fodder for ridicule.
Ah. This old nugget. You seem to be laboring under the mistaken view that morality cannot arise or exist apart from some deity or ultimate godhead or something.
This is, of course, nothing but baseless nonsense.
I never said that. Of course you can have morality without religion, just as you can be an atheist and still be irrational. However, morality is irrational. There is no logical, scientific way to justify caring for someone you don't know and no scientific reason not to experiment on another human being by watching them die while gathering data. You can make an argument against it without religion, but any argument against it would be irrational. I am not a rationalist, so I don't care, and I never believed in the old "rational=good" line.
Ah nozzs law of internet forum posting strikes again it seems. Was I right or was I right. Also since insults demean only the insulter, never the target, I will not respond to the name calling part of your post. You let only yourself down in this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWD39
I presented the evidence, you rejected it immediately. Not much more complicated than that.
False. I asked questions to help clarify / understand the evidence. You seem to this the definition of "reject" is: "To fail to accept instantly and irrevocably without question". You presented something, I sought clarification, but rather than give it you reverted to your "Atheists reject all my evidence" mantra.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWD39
Completely untrue. The moment you started comparing Bible archaeology to Jason Bourne....
I was not comparing them. It was an analogy. There is a difference. The purpose of the analogy was solely to point out the simple fact.... a fact you refuse to acknowledge.... that merely establishing through archaeology that the places mentioned in a book were real does not, on it's own, suffice to prove that all the events in said book were real too. More work has to be done.
More than that I did not say.
If you want to over extend that analogy to make it look like I am claiming things I am not then this says everything about your position, and nothing about mine.
Ah nozzs law of internet forum posting strikes again it seems. Was I right or was I right. Also since insults demean only the insulter, never the target, I will not respond to the name calling part of your post. You let only yourself down in this.
False. I asked questions to help clarify / understand the evidence. You seem to this the definition of "reject" is: "To fail to accept instantly and irrevocably without question". You presented something, I sought clarification, but rather than give it you reverted to your "Atheists reject all my evidence" mantra.
Your questions boiled down to suggesting that the people involved produced fake tests and conspired to tell a lie with no monetary gain or real purpose. It's pretty sad that this was the only way you could create to tear it down. OTOH, you will take something like the Pew Study at face value WITHOUT question as evidence. How do you know they are not lying? How do you know they were not bribed by atheists to produce false results? I can play the same game, ya know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
I was not comparing them. It was an analogy. There is a difference. The purpose of the analogy was solely to point out the simple fact.... a fact you refuse to acknowledge.... that merely establishing through archaeology that the places mentioned in a book were real does not, on it's own, suffice to prove that all the events in said book were real too. More work has to be done.
More than that I did not say.
If you want to over extend that analogy to make it look like I am claiming things I am not then this says everything about your position, and nothing about mine.
An analogy is a form of comparison. Furthermore, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You want to say archaeology is not credible because it only verifies the same thing that can be found in works of fiction, but you refuse to say archaeology is not a form of evidence. With your double speak, it would be impossible to validate any historical event, Biblical or non-Biblical.
Your questions boiled down to suggesting that the people involved produced fake tests and conspired to tell a lie with no monetary gain or real purpose. It's pretty sad that this was the only way you could create to tear it down. OTOH, you will take something like the Pew Study at face value WITHOUT question as evidence. How do you know they are not lying? How do you know they were not bribed by atheists to produce false results? I can play the same game, ya know.
An analogy is a form of comparison. Furthermore, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You want to say archaeology is not credible because it only verifies the same thing that can be found in works of fiction, but you refuse to say archaeology is not a form of evidence. With your double speak, it would be impossible to validate any historical event, Biblical or non-Biblical.
Reading your responses to nozz's well thought out and articulate posts, I suspect that you either have a severe reading comprehension problem or you are being purposely obtuse...He did not say archaeology was not credible at all. He simply said that archeology offers no evidence that anything in the bible is fact other than some people and places. If you have evidence that the bible is entirely credible why are you afraid to present it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
