General

soz4pwn guise

[quote=angramainyu]It doesn't matter how popular her position is -- she provides evidence, which you have yet to.[/quote]
Her position was mostly based on her speculation and doubt that the documents were valid. She stated it was highly unlikely but not impossible. So it doesn't necessarily disprove the documents.

[quote=dimo]I can understand that it may seem that way, but its nothing more than misdirection.
Most, if not all of the objections should be as follows:
Objection -> Retort
However, the objections here are answers as follows:
Objection -> Yeah well atheists can't answer this somewhat related question therefore potato.
Furthermore all "facts" stated within the answer were done so without a single reference.
While the answers might be enough for a layman, these retorts do not hold up to any sort of logical or scientific scrutiny.[/quote]

I thought it was more like this
Objection>Explanation as to why Atheists believe this>Why its like this>Bible Verse

[quote=Boksunni1]Well I guess that's your opinion. I thought the authors addressed them pretty well.[/quote]

I can understand that it may seem that way, but its nothing more than misdirection.

Most, if not all of the objections should be as follows:
Objection -> Retort

However, the objections here are answers as follows:
Objection -> Yeah well atheists can't answer this somewhat related question therefore potato.

Furthermore all "facts" stated within the answer were done so without a single reference.

While the answers might be enough for a layman, these retorts do not hold up to any sort of logical or scientific scrutiny.

[quote=dimo]@Boksunni1:

Yes, I didn't just read the objections. Most "answers" merely attempted to divert the attention of the reader elsewhere without actually answering the question/objection at hand.[/quote]

Well I guess that's your opinion. I thought the authors addressed them pretty well.

@Boksunni1:

Yes, I didn't just read the objections. Most "answers" merely attempted to divert the attention of the reader elsewhere without actually answering the question/objection at hand.

[quote=dimo]Had a quick read of some random responses on that page, what an absolute joke, all I read weer a bunch of red herring fallacies[/quote]

Did you click on Objection to see the explanation?

Had a quick read of some random responses on that page, what an absolute joke, all I read were a bunch of red herring fallacies

[quote=angramainyu][url=http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm]They also happen to be forgeries.[/url][/quote]

Not necessarily. You can't jump to conclusions just yet. That article was written by one of many historical scholars. Her views doesn't represent all of them. The majority agree that those sources are credible.

[quote=angramainyu]The original Judaic lore came from the Babylonian captives with previous pagan inclinations, who ripped off their Zoroastrian neighbors and claimed to be the original monotheists, so in that sense, it does originate from uneducated, desert-dwelling farmers and slaves.

Believing in the existence of Jesus without any historical evidence -- of which there is none -- would be bias. Believing the Bible to be mostly false, not so much, given that we've known pretty conclusively for years that the book regularly makes stuff up, both about historical events and the nature of the world.[/quote]

Actually there is proof. If you go to the Wikipedia page, it states that there are numerous non religious documents that state the existence of Jesus. There's also links if you need them.

@PonyCard That's your opinion. But do you really think its good to call people stupid just cause you feel like it? What wrong have I done to you?

[quote=PonyCard]@NewGen Ah good ol' slashx69, stay gold bro.

ITT: Ignorant people arguing with other ignorant people. p.s. I read the article, it's retarded. Please leave and never come back.[/quote]
Dude, I said it was your choice whether you wanted to read the article or not. You can't complain if the article wasn't up to your standards.

[quote=angramainyu]The bulk of the Christian mythos isn't valid. We know enough of the Bible to be either factually untrue or outright forged that there is literally no reason to believe anything between its covers. The book occasionally gets things right, about as often as you'd expect uneducated desert-dwelling farmers and slaves from the sixth century BC to guess correctly.[/quote]

You're stereotyping. Many people in the bible were not farmers or slaves but educated people (for that time period) And I still find it biased that you think that most of the Bible is false. Jesus is a real person.

I wonder how many Atheists actually read the article fully. I know at least 2 did I think.

[quote=angramainyu]No, I wouldn't call Christianity fallacious. There are too many aspects to the religion to make a broad statement like that. What I'm saying is that the Bible tells us precisely nothing useful about reality.[/quote]

You called its base, the Bible on which it was based on fallacious... If the foundation is fallacious how can the rest be valid. Isn't that contradicting your statement?

If you say that the Bible cannot justify anything, that's your opinion. But in any case, its up to you whether you want to believe that the article was well founded.

[quote=angramainyu]Yeah, the counter-arguments are pretty fallacious. Not least because the Bible isn't evidence for anything.[/quote]

So you agree with him that Christianity is fallacious, since you called its base fallacious?

[quote=angramainyu]>
I'm not sure which fallacies @SomeGuyXXX was referring to, because all I see is a list of relatively well-constructed objections to Christianity, save for a few strawmen (when have you ever seen an atheist argue against the existence of objective reality?). The counter-arguments, on the other hand, are less than well-founded, but again that has less to do with religion itself and more to do with the particular arguments.[/quote]

He called the counter-arguments fallacies, which is pretty much calling Christianity a fallacy. This is because he's denying the evidence used in the counter arguments, The Bible.

[quote=angramainyu]Then what Krauss said went completely over your head. That's not at all what he was suggesting.

You're fixating on this fallacy thing. No one has ever said religion was a fallacy. Religion encapsulates a huge range of beliefs, which may or may not be individually fallacious. The clincher about popular religions like Christianity or Islam is that every important claim they make about reality we know to either be unfalsifiable (read: meaningless) or fallacious by their lack of supporting formal logic or evidence.[/quote]

Last comment on the first page...

[quote=angramainyu]There are also people who deem the invisible pink unicorn tied up in my backyard logical. Does the mere act of those people believing in it lend any credence to the idea? Not one bit.

I don't deem religion a fallacy, because religion is not a formal argument.[/quote]

Yea, since religion isn't a formal argument in your case, I believe it can't be determined as a fallacy without personal perspective which leads to biased views.

[quote=angramainyu]Which is inherently not logical, so we know offhand that any argument that invokes faith won't be valid.[/quote]
There are people who deem faith as logical. Also since you deem all religion a fallacy, you should read the article a bit more.

@ uiluj4 thank you

[quote=angramainyu]We don't just flip a coin to decide what type of arguments are fallacious -- we know what is and is not fallacious because logic follows the same basic rules as mathematics.[/quote]

But in this case it pertains to more than just logic. There's faith involved as well.

[quote=Criticism]How would the definition of "fallacy" be altered by the subject of the debate?[/quote]

This subject isn't something that can just be proven with facts. This is where faith comes in. The people for the Bible would deem/work to deem it logical while the other people would deem/work to deem it illogical.

God is not real. The stuff you were told when you were a kid, is bull$h1t.

[quote=Criticism]That is entirely not the case. Whether or not an argument is fallacious isn't influenced by opinion.[/quote]

But shouldn't it in this case? Its like the Bible vs Science (The areas that're working to disprove it).

[quote=uiluj4]Just because it's bias, doesn't mean it's logical or illogical.[/quote]

It would be logical for the person supporting and illogical for the person against it. And in this case its hard to have people that are neutral.

[quote=angramainyu]Because fallacies reduce to logical statements that can be evaluated like any other equation.[/quote]

But I'm saying the people that determine whether its a fallacy or not, would be biased in their decision.

@ uiluj4: I'm glad you acknowledge his article.

[quote=uiluj4]I have no idea what you're talking about or why it's relevant to what I wrote, but okay.

Have a nice day.[/quote]

Your comment was biased even if you claim it not to be. Your choice of words made it seem like what the guy had proved had no weight to it, since it seemed so typical.

[quote=Boksunni1]Well I suppose people can't really prove/disprove religion without being biased.[/quote]

You can't prove/disprove religion regardless. o_o

[quote=uiluj4]If it sound bad, that's your opinion. Your perception of my brief summary has nothing to do with my intentions. I wrote what I wrote because it's true. If you think it sounds bad, then that's your opinion, not mine.[/quote]

Well I suppose people can't really prove/disprove religion without being biased.

[quote=Boksunni1]I just reread it but it said he used it for justifying his objections. And you make it sound bad
That's how it works if you're a lawyer. You need evidence to justify your points.[/quote]

I don't think his authority in policing justifies his theistic claims...

[quote=uiluj4]Well, he claims that he's done police work for over 20years[/quote]
I just reread it but it said he used it for justifying his objections. And you make it sound bad
That's how it works if you're a lawyer. You need evidence to justify your points.

[quote=angramainyu]No, a fallacy is a fallacy independent of observers. It just happens that @SomeGuyXXX has found fallacies where they don't exist.[/quote]

that hurt a lot

[quote=uiluj4]Well basically, the guy who wrote all that stuff is using his experience in the criminal justice system in order to make his case for Christianity. He starts off with agnostic arguments to debunk the atheist position, and then he uses "circumstantial evidence" to definitively prove that Jesus is our Lord and Savior. And then, of course, he makes the claim that the existence of objective truths are dependent on the existence of an objective observer, i.e. God.
Nothing new, but they're effective.[/quote]

This wan't written by a single person... And plus the guy who had experience with the criminal justice system just that experience to justify his claims properly with quotes from the Bible.

[quote=Qwop]But a lawyer can support either side depending on who hires him[/quote]
I never said a lawyer couldn't....

[quote=Qwop]Did you read the article though?[/quote]

Yes I did, and ironically Clarence Darrow is a famous lawyer.

[quote=angramainyu]No, a fallacy is a fallacy independent of observers. It just happens that @SomeGuyXXX has found fallacies where they don't exist.[/quote]

Edit: How would you prove it to be a fallacy though without making big claims? I don't think its possible to say its a fallacy since it leaded to biased views.

"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."
― Clarence Darrow

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
― Carl Sagan

OT: I refuse to believe in a God who has to threaten you eternal torment and torture, because he loves you. Also all the answers in that page are based on blind faith ignorance.

[quote=SomeGuyXXX]@Boksunni1: It's a site for Christians to object to objections. bleep[/quote]

And calling it a fallacy would be biased since its based on your views.

@Boksunni1: It's a site for Christians to object to objections. bleep

[quote=SomeGuyXXX]scrolled down and saw like 50 fallacies in a row[/quote]

No they're some of the views Atheists may have of Christianity. Click on objection to see the explanation.

scrolled down and saw like 50 fallacies in a row

[quote=LazyLazyLazy]keylogger?[/quote]

Please stop. It's isn't funny since it causes unwanted tension and suspicion for something that it isn't. Type it into google and scan it with your antivirus if you want...

[quote=LazyLazyLazy]keylogger?[/quote]

why do basilers keep on asking that for every single link...

WOT is undetermined

[quote=spring786]No flames please.[/quote]

I second that.

[quote=ZOMGitjon]it would be nice if you actually put a summary or quotes....[/quote]

Well I said its up to you if you want to read it. Plus there's too much info so it'd be a wall of text.

it would be nice if you actually put a summary or quotes....