Evidence Types

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It was dishonest.  Y’all were limiting evidence.  Just have the conversation.  It will either hurt or it won’t.

So, here's your chance to enlighten us, then, End3.  Present us with evidence that is within the established parameters of this thread.  If we accept it, then it will not have been an unproductive conversation.

 

If you can't/don't/won't, then I'm locking this one up.  Your move.

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Folks, this one is simply not worth the time.  He has returned with the same emotional, psychological and mental dysfunctions, all of which he pretends are not there.  Instead, he projects them on others, while hiding in his fantasy world.

 

Ahh, paragraph two of your response... lol...disqualify the testimony from the crazy guy.  

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, here's your chance to enlighten us, then, End3.  Present us with evidence that is within the established parameters of this thread.  If we accept it, then it will not have been an unproductive conversation.

 

If you can't/don't/won't, then I'm locking this one up.  Your move.

Let’s be clear... what are the established parameters.  And make damn sure where you say this was the intent and course of my discussion.  Don’t imply, don’t guess.... evidence please.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

26 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Let’s be clear... what are the established parameters.  And make damn sure where you say this was the intent and course of my discussion.  Don’t imply, don’t guess.... evidence please.

Photographic evidence below:

 

 

[Edgarcito]

And they gave their answer.... pretty much opposing their own ideology... to protect what?  In other words, I won’t accept nor allow the accepted definitions of evidence.  Why?  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

And they gave their answer.... pretty much opposing their own ideology... to protect what?  In other words, I won’t accept nor allow the accepted definitions of evidence.  Why?  

Not much more we can discuss here, then.  

 

Anybody opposed to this thread being locked up?  

[Edgarcito]

11 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Not much more we can discuss here, then.  

 

Anybody opposed to this thread being locked up?  

What a cheap way out of a real discussion.  God gave man Jesus.  Jesus gave signs.  Communion... a physical reminder.  All just coincidences from tribal goat herders ....gotcha .

[★ Citsonga ★]

25 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

And they gave their answer.... pretty much opposing their own ideology... to protect what?  In other words, I won’t accept nor allow the accepted definitions of evidence.  Why?  

 

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

What a cheap way out of a real discussion.  God gave man Jesus.  Jesus gave signs.  Communion... a physical reminder.  All just coincidences from tribal goat herders ....gotcha .

 

LMAO!

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

What a cheap way out of a real discussion.  God gave man Jesus.  Jesus gave signs.  Communion... a physical reminder.  All just coincidences from tribal goat herders ....gotcha .

 

What shall we call you, End4? 

 

The fourth installment of an apologetic's that has failed time and again, over and over? You've heard it before. You've been given graphic detail. Jesus isn't a given as one individual historical figure let alone someone who literally gave signs of any type. There's no contemporary witness evidence to confirm any of the claims. You know this. End3 knew this. And yet End4 is still making claims like the above.

 

You are speaking as if evidences exist which do not currently exist.

 

And since they do not exist, you can not speak as if they do and as if they should be treated as a given. We're way, way, beyond that here. None of this is a given. All of it, every step of the way has to be substantiated by the person making the positive claims. Which is you. Where is your evidence for these claims that god gave man jesus and jesus gave signs? 

 

The bible?

 

The bible can not by itself prove it's own claims. That's not how evidence works. And we'll not be considering the bible as credible evidence for proving it's internal claims. Again, you know this from being told as much time and again as End3. So End4 certainly is aware of the short comings involved in this line of questioning. There's been no change in the lack of evidence on your "end." 

 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Not much more we can discuss here, then.  

 

Anybody opposed to this thread being locked up?  

 

May as well lock it down considering the fact that this is nothing more than End4 continuing past discussions which he was not able to substantiate as End3. It's either put up or shut up at this point. What would be the point otherwise? He's had all the time in the world to provide the evidence. He's failed. And now his reincarnation is still failing 12 pages into it. The horse seems pretty dead and fogged folks....

[Astreja]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

What a cheap way out of a real discussion.  God gave man Jesus.  Jesus gave signs.  Communion... a physical reminder.  All just coincidences from tribal goat herders ....gotcha .

 

What discussion?  You're not willing to meet our evidentiary standards -- probably because the evidence simply doesn't exist -- and here you are, pissing and whining and trying to make *us* into the bad guys.  You asked a question.  We answered.  You didn't like the answers.

 

Definitely lock this thread, TRP.  It's way, way past its best-before date.

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, Astreja said:

 

What discussion?  You're not willing to meet our evidentiary standards -- probably because the evidence simply doesn't exist -- and here you are, pissing and whining and trying to make *us* into the bad guys.  You asked a question.  We answered.  You didn't like the answers.

 

Definitely lock this thread, TRP.  It's way, way past its best-before date.

It’s hypocrisy... y’all preach science, logic, etc... until you don’t.  

[Astreja]

49 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It’s hypocrisy... y’all preach science, logic, etc... until you don’t.  

 

What "science"?  Wild-ass claims about people coming back from the dead?  People who try to claim that the three-hour darkness at the time of the Crucifiction was a solar eclipse, despite the fact that solar eclipses don't work that way, and that in any event could not have happened at Passover (which is set at a full moon, not the new moon required for a solar eclipse)?

 

There is no science in the Jesus fables, End_x.  They're fairy tales that people have taken much too seriously for much too long.

 

It is precisely *because* of science, and growing up in a science-friendly household, that I could never take any of the supernatural nonsense in the Bible seriously.  There are occasional snippets of good advice, but if you took out all the silly crap you could fit the worthwhile parts of the Bible on an 8½" x 11" sheet of paper and still have room to doodle in the margins.

[midniterider]

Lock this thread. 

 

Why dont we have a thread where each person can only post once. The thread will be called "What is your evidence for the reality of Jesus?" 

 

If you dont post something substantial in your one and only post, then you dont get another chance. Any additional posts by the same person will get shitcanned.