Please give evidence for all religions except Christianity

[zooterkin]

Scientologists? Here? You are having a giraffe aren't you?

There is at least one.

 

[shawmutt]

Yes I'm aware, but this whole x business is just a round about way of talking about material brought up in that other thread. This thread is not about that thread it is about evidence for religions other than Christianity. Don't use x, use specific examples from other religions.

 

[Fiona]

Yes I'm aware, but this whole x business is just a round about way of talking about material brought up in that other thread. This thread is not about that thread it is about evidence for religions other than Christianity. Don't use x, use specific examples from other religions.

I don't understand. You have proffered various things which you take to be evidence for christianity. As I understand it the nature of that evidence can be precis-ed and that is what was done. Now you may disagree that that precis is an accurate account of the evidence you have presented. In that case your best plan would be to show why you disagree and offer corrections.

But if it is a reasonable rendering of what you think of as the evidence for christianity then that very same evidence must be evidence for other religions if the same features are present. At least I think that follows

Fillippo then went on to show that those features are indeed present in most if not all of the mainstream religions. So they are also true if your evidence is actually evidence.

That is not changing the subject, DOC. It is a perfectly legitimate way to address the point you raise. Given that most here are not religious it is unreasonable to expect you will get much from those who are inside other religions if that is what you are looking for. But it doesn't matter. What such an apologist could bring to the table is more detail of just how their particular religion demonstrates the features you hold to be evidence of the truth of a religion. But it would icing on the top of the general principle.

It seems to me that you have three possible courses:

1. You can show why fillipo's post is not an accurate rendering of what you have proposed as evidence for the truth of christianity: and you can correct the list. ( I do not mean you should reiterate the detail you provided to illustrate each feature: but rather you should show why one or more of the items on that list are not a part of your case; or you should add in any items you feel are wrongly omitted)

2. You can accept the list as accurate and go on to show that it applies to christianity and does not apply to other religions. (I have the impression you hoped that some from other faiths would engage so that you could do this with them: but that is not necessary for this process, though, again, the detail may well be lacking in specific areas. But that only makes your job easier, surely )

3. You can decide that absent those of other faiths the conversation you wanted to have is impossible: and we can leave the thread lying until someone from another faith shows up and is willing to engage you

I don't see a fourth alterntive. Do you?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

DOC is still trying to Google "variables".

Let's not tell him the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'll tell you what, when my other thread is reopened I'll respond to the points you brought up, your points seemed somewhat related to that other thread. If the points you brought up apply to other religions then tell us which ones.

So you're saying that it's ok to provide evidence for other religions except nobody can use any of the same "logic" that you did in the other thread?

 

[GeeMack]

I don't see a fourth alterntive. Do you?

Not with kittens, recipes, and parody being infractable offenses.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I'll tell you what, when my other thread is reopened I'll respond to the points you brought up, your points seemed somewhat related to that other thread. If the points you brought up apply to other religions then tell us which ones.

Fiona said this much more elegantly and in greater detail, but I'll add this because I know you don't (can't?) read the long posts:

What Filippo Lupi (did I get that right?) posted applies equally to all religions if it applies to yours.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hi, I currently have the below thread in the History and Literature forum.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124603

In that thread which has over 14,000 posts I give some historical and other evidence why I believe Christianity is true. That thread has been closed temporarily. Until the thread is reopened I've decided to have a different thread. In this new thread I would like members of religions "other than Christianity" to give evidence why you believe your religion is true. Thanks

There is no evidence any gods exist, including the mythical Christian god.

Once again please do not post evidence for Christianity in here.

Not an issue.

 

[Gregoire]

Yes I'm aware, but this whole x business is just a round about way of talking about material brought up in that other thread. This thread is not about that thread it is about evidence for religions other than Christianity. Don't use x, use specific examples from other religions.

DOC, I understand what you are saying. You want specific examples. Fair enough. That is the reason I referred to a podcast in post #52 which contained an actual conversation.

And the point here was that it wasn't just the atheists who saw a striking resemblance between Baha'i apologetics and Christian apologetics. It was Christian apologists themselves on the podcast who noted this.








(So you don't have to scroll back, here is what I said in post #52)

Filippo actually makes a really good point.

Back on 4/25/09, the Apologia podcast ("a friendly roundtable discussion between theists and nontheists that seeks common understanding.") had on a follower of the Baha'i faith to explain his religion. He was very well spoken and sounded like someone who had thought a lot about his religion.

Interestingly, as I recall, he used arguments 1, 2 and 3 and possibly a form of argument 5. What was so striking was that even the Christian apologist regulars on the podcast noted that he used arguments very similar to theirs.

 

[I Ratant]

Well, OK then, but can Valkyries still be real. Please.

.
There's a lot to be said for houris, also!

 

[X]

There are a lot of non-religious folk on this forum.
The next biggest group is Christians, which you've explicitly barred.

So, why would the majority of people on this board go and give you evidence for a religion they don't follow?

If you want apologetics for other religions, then I suggest you find forums for those religions and post your query there...

Yes, I want apologetists for other religions, where are they? Are there any Jewish, Morman, Islam, Scientologist, etc. apologists on Randi.

This highlighted part of my post answers the bolded question in yours.

Try reading, DOC.



Although I strongly suspect your motivations go to your comments about "successfully defending Christianity for thousands of posts". This is a testable hypothesis: I predict much special pleading if similar arguments for other religions do show up, and much harping on not finding many apologists on these forums instead of going to other more fertile grounds.

Could it be that most people don't feel the need to try and proselytize constantly? To, as we say, live and let live?

 

[Toke]

.
There's a lot to be said for houris, also!

There is no difference, those foreigners just got the spelling and job description wrong.

 

[I Ratant]

There is no difference, those foreigners just got the spelling and job description wrong.

.
Sure there is!
Super-muscled warrior princesses in leather armor flinging swords willy-nilly threatening your willy, versus grape-peeling silk-clad supple ladies with no yucky bodily functions, and no bad attitude to try to woo them out of....

 

[Toke]

.
Sure there is!
Super-muscled warrior princesses in leather armor flinging swords willy-nilly threatening your willy, versus grape-peeling silk-clad supple ladies with no yucky bodily functions, and no bad attitude to try to woo them out of....

You, know, those can easily be the same individuals.

 

[I Ratant]

You, know, those can easily be the same individuals.

.
I see you've met Sweet Thang!

 

[Sun Countess]

Once again please do not post evidence for Christianity in here.

The coast is clear. I just did a check of the entire JREF forum, and there's not a single shred of evidence for Christianity in here. In fact, a quick check of the internet seems to indicate there isn't any elsewhere either.

 

[tsig]

Hi, I currently have the below thread in the History and Literature forum.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124603

In that thread which has over 14,000 posts I give some historical and other evidence why I believe Christianity is true. That thread has been closed temporarily. Until the thread is reopened I've decided to have a different thread. In this new thread I would like members of religions "other than Christianity" to give evidence why you believe your religion is true. Thanks

Once again please do not post evidence for Christianity in here.

If you don't become a Muslim Allah's going to burn your skin off then replace it with more skin so you will feel more pain for all eternity. Don't you want to avoid such a fate? Allah Akbar!!

 

[Akhenaten]

I'll tell you what, when my other thread is reopened I'll respond to the points you brought up, your points seemed somewhat related to that other thread. If the points you brought up apply to other religions then tell us which ones.

All. Of. Them.

Yes I'm aware, but this whole x business is just a round about way of talking about material brought up in that other thread. This thread is not about that thread it is about evidence for religions other than Christianity. Don't use x, use specific examples from other religions.

Recognise this fellow, DOC?

 

[DOC]

Most religions have some of the truth...

I would agree but the "Law of Non-Contradiction" says two religions that contradict can't both be true. For example Islam and Christianity can't both be true because Islam does not believe Christ was the son of God or died on the cross. Judaism and Christianity can't both be true because Jews also don't believe Christ was divine. So while all these religions may have some truth they all can't be right.

 

[joobz]

I would agree but the "Law of Non-Contradiction" says two religions that contradict can't both be true. For example Islam and Christianity can't both be true because Islam does not believe Christ was the son of God or died or the cross. Judaism and Christianity can't both be true because Jews also don't believe Christ was divine. So while all these religions may have some truth they all can't be right.

But they can all be wrong.