Please give evidence for all religions except Christianity

[Lothian]

I noticed though you didn't actually refute any of his facts. What's important is the message, not how eloquently that message is presented.

It are full off circulating reasoning, begin' the question and other fallacies, basically it are loads of bollocks man

 

[Lucian]

I noticed though you didn't actually refute any of his facts. What's important is the message, not how eloquently that message is presented. If someone runs into my town in 1776 and yells "the British is coming", I'm not going to take the time to criticize the guy on his grammar.

Could it be because you dishonestly ignore all refutations, even when you specifically ask for them?

Oh, please please please ask me to explain that with examples.

It are full off circulating reasoning, begin' the question and other fallacies, basically it are loads of bollocks man

What RoboTimbo and Lothian said. It's the same stuff you've been saying over and over. All of it has been discussed; the absurdity of all the arguments has been addressed. Repeatedly. Your source starts with a straw man: "First of all I would like to point out something for those who reject the New Testament because it claims to be the word of God." Nope, that's not why we reject it. And anyway, where does the NT claim to be "the word of God." It seems to me that it claims to be the words of a whole bunch of different guys who have something to say about Jesus and God.

 

[joobz]

I noticed though you didn't actually refute any of his facts. What's important is the message, not how eloquently that message is presented. If someone runs into my town in 1776 and yells "the British is coming", I'm not going to take the time to criticize the guy on his grammar.

Your point would be more impressive if you hadn't ignored at least 4 other posts which commented on the substance of the argument.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6299065#post6299065
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6299090#post6299090
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6299708#post6299708
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6300100#post6300100

As it stands, you are merely guilty of what you are criticizing Lucian for doing. However, unlike your post, Lucian didn't comment on the substance because it was already addressed. She was simply explaining that not only is your source substantively flawed, it is stylistically flawed as well.

What is your excuse for not commenting on the other posts?

 

[X]

Do you accept that including embarrassing details is evidence that the text is true?

Do you accept that including embarrassing details and difficult sayings is evidence that the text is true?

Psst... DOC...

I think you missed this post.

Please answer it.

They are nice and simple yes/no questions.

Please answer.

 

[Akhenaten]

The fact that the authors have used crude and uneducated language to describe these events is evidence that they are speaking the truth. If the writers had been making the stories up they would have been more careful to use correct grammar and syntax.

/DOCSPEAK

I noticed though you didn't actually refute any of his facts. What's important is the message, not how eloquently that message is presented. If someone runs into my town in 1776 and yells "the British is coming", I'm not going to take the time to criticize the guy on his grammar.

Well, dang! No million for me.

 

[A Lurker]

Well, dang! No million for me.

Well no, no millions for you because DOC repeating the same arguments again is a metronomic, not a miraculous occurrence; but I believe you did identify the exact DOC argument all the same; he's making the claim that obviously our friend coming running in an illiterate passion must mean he genuinely believes the British are coming; if he'd lied, or was acting, he'd likely be more grammatically convincing...

... which of course, even back in 1776, you'd have to be a fool to believe was true in every town in America, unless the British had somehow invented teleporting Redcoats, which were powered by the blood of colonial children; I mean, just imagine DOC running into 1776 New York City...

DOC: "The British is coming!"
Thousands of Loyalists: "Yaaaaay!"

... but still... in DOC town, it really would be "Redcoats!" And what's worse, they bring with them documents that have THE SIGNATURE OF THE KING upon them! And we all know how important signatures are! Don't take the time to think, because Mad Hairy Mountainman Mikey here says that they are definitely coming! REDCOATS!! PANIC!!!

Satire, but not by much. Always remember, if someone tells you something that agrees with your assumptions, no matter how ridiculous or unlikely, don't take time to think! Things really are as simple as you'd like them to be!

 

[DOC]

Do you accept that including embarrassing details is evidence that the text is true?

Do you accept that including embarrassing details and difficult sayings is evidence that the text is true?

Psst... DOC...

I think you missed this post.

Please answer it.

They are nice and simple yes/no questions.

Please answer.

They might be yes and no questions (a sometimes debating trick) but they don't factor in the pivotal issue of the relative importance of the individual or individuals (in question) to the religion

And yes I already did respond to Lothian with the following quote.

Depends on the context and who was written about and how important they are to the religion. One or two facts about a single Hindu writer are not very important when compared to 300,000,000 Hindu gods. Whereas if there was only one God, and that one God and his immediate followers were shown to do embarrassing things, then that wouldn't make sense to write about if you were a writer making things up.

 

[nvidiot]

Why do you lie? I mean seriously, is it about convincing others or convincing yourself?

 

[paximperium]

That was not a response DOC, it is an excuse.
Why are you lying DOC?

 

[paximperium]

DOC, you are right this thread is not about Christian evidence, it is a request from you for evidence for other religions. However you have not been very responsive to the 'evidence' you have been given so we really need to get down to basics to understand what you think constitutes evidence. Remember we don't what to know which religion has more evidence or which religion is true. We just want to know what you think constitutes a piece of evidence.

Do you accept that including embarrassing details is evidence that the text is true?

Do you accept that including embarrassing details and difficult sayings is evidence that the text is true?

These really are simple questions. I am going to repeat them until you answer them, so the fact you keep ignoring them is out there for all to see.
Any lurkers can then make their own judgement on the honesty and integrity of Christians.

YES or NO.
Stop making up excuses and answer the question.

 

[joobz]

They might be yes and no questions (a sometimes debating trick) but they don't factor in the pivotal issue of the relative importance of the individual or individuals (in question) to the religion

DOC, something either is or isn't evidence.
If something requires a qualification to be considered evidence that the sum of two points TOGETHER represent evidence, not separately.

And yes I already did respond to Lothian with the following quote.

DOC, your answer was actually quite nonsensical and why people dismissed it.

Let's go through it and see why.

Depends on the context and who was written about and how important they are to the religion.

So in order for something to be evidence, YOU have to accept that person as a valuable individual. ANd what makes that person a valuable individual? because you want them to be.
This is called special pleading and is a logical fallacy.

One or two facts about a single Hindu writer are not very important when compared to 300,000,000 Hindu gods.

Who made this rule? I can't seem to find any justification for it ANYWHERE.
Also, you were corrected regarding the 300,000,000 god thing. So, not only is this point a made up fallacy, it is also based upon factually false information.

Whereas if there was only one God, and that one God and his immediate followers were shown to do embarrassing things, then that wouldn't make sense to write about if you were a writer making things up.

Or, you could look at it as you wouldn't want to lie if you were going to anger 300,000,000 gods vs. just one. You see, we are simply back to your original statement. You are looking for excuses to dismiss the evidence for hinduism and NOT using reasoned arguments to dismiss them.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Depends on the context and who was written about and how important they are to the religion. One or two facts about a single Hindu writer are not very important when compared to 300,000,000 Hindu gods. Whereas if there was only one God, and that one God and his immediate followers were shown to do embarrassing things, then that wouldn't make sense to write about if you were a writer making things up.

Doesn't it ever bother you that you have to constantly keep coming up with special pleadings to make your "evidence" for your god different than the "evidence" for any other god? (Here's the form a special pleading takes: "Yes, I know you said about your god exactly what I said about my god but what you said isn't evidence and what I said is because [fill in the blank].") You do know that special pleading is a logical fallacy, don't you?

Anyway, why would an author be more likely to write something embarrassing about one of three hundred million than of one by itself? It's still something embarrassing about one entity, whether it's one of millions, or one alone.

And one of the explanations I have heard about the three hundred million or billion or whatever the number is of the Hindu gods is that they are names for the different aspects of god. You should be able to understand that concept - Jesus is referred to in many ways: Jesus, Christ, Jesus Christ, Jesus who is called the Christ, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Morning Star (confusing because that also refers to Lucifer sometimes), the Savior, Emmanuel. There's also the whole idea of the trinity. You don't say you are a polytheist worshipping three different gods because of the trinity, do you? No, you are a monotheist worshipping one god with three aspects. The Hindu god/gods just seem to be a little more versatile than yours, and able to present more aspects to the world.

But you need to stop this special pleading business. It makes you look dishonest.

ETA: Joobz beat me to it.

 

[zooterkin]

But you need to stop this special pleading business. It makes you look dishonest.

So if he stopped the special pleading, DOC would look honest? It's an interesting point of view...

 

[Elizabeth I]

So if he stopped the special pleading, DOC would look honest? It's an interesting point of view...

Well, it would help.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You have yet to answer with a YES or NO to the following:

Do you accept that including embarrassing details is evidence that the text is true?

Do you accept that including embarrassing details and difficult sayings is evidence that the text is true?

These really are simple questions. I am going to repeat them until you answer them, so the fact you keep ignoring them is out there for all to see.
Any lurkers can then make their own judgement on the honesty and integrity of Christians.

YES or NO, DOC? Or are you going to continue with your dishonesty?

You yourself are evidence that Christianity is not true.

 

[Elizabeth I]

You have yet to answer with a YES or NO to the following:


YES or NO, DOC? Or are you going to continue with your dishonesty?

You yourself are evidence that Christianity is not true.

Oooh, that's cold!

 

[joobz]

You yourself are evidence that Christianity is not true.

Point of order!
This is a true Ad Hominem.


Carry on.

 

[Akhenaten]

You yourself are evidence that Christianity is not true.

Point of order!
This is a true Ad Hominem.


Carry on.

No, no, no. There's been a misunderstanding.

RoboTimbo is simply saving DOC the trouble of doing his own quote mining while he's busy doing his research into the martyrdom of the apostles.

RT's post, as it would have appeared in the ore from which it was extracted would have read:

The special pleading, circular reasoning and other appalling logical fallacies that you yourself attempt to present, claiming that they are evidence, serve as an undeniable testament that Christianity is not true, and speak far louder than anything that your critics might say.

I believe RoboTimbo is to be applauded for this kindness that he shows his obviously pressed-for-time opponent.

 

[Mirrorglass]

You yourself are evidence that Christianity is not true.

Are you saying DOC hasn't been including very embarrassing details about Christianity in his texts?

 

[kmortis]

Are you saying DOC hasn't been including very embarrassing details about Christianity in his texts?

If I'm reading him right, he's saying that DOC is an embarrasing detail about Christianity.