siegi91

True, but many books are set in places that correspond to real places. That does not entail, logically, that any story depicted in them are true because of this fact only. That would be a little too easy, don’you think so? siegi

This atheist cannot really make a difference between learned and unlearned Christians, since her knowledge of Christianity is still very fragmentary.

The internal evidence qualifies as evidence? That sounds a bit circular Whatever do you mean? siegi

No. The main reason people do not come to Christ is not because they love darkness. It is either because they are not Christians (e.g. Jews), or because they do not buy the evidence you proclaim to have. siegi

Ok, point taken, That will lead us back to the evidence you have. Which is? A book? Please don't tell me it is because Christianity is so peculiar LOL siegi

I am not asking anything. I simply not see why having a different theology, with a loving god, a salvation plan, a god that died, resurrected, whatever you think is so peculiar in your religion, adds anything at all to its plausibility. What is that? siegi

Well, then I have to repeat my question again. And? siegi

And your evidence for that is? The fact that no other religious text does that? I can make up in no time a doctrine that no other religious text has. It is not difficult at all. siegi

Well, you tell me. Is being different and unique something of value? You mentioned it several times, so I expect that you did that for a reason. Which is....? siegi :)

I don't disagree. I am ready to bite the bullet and admit that Christianity is so much different and unique from all other religions. And? siegi

Fair enough. Christianity is unlikely anything else. It is absolutely unique and cannot be equated to any other religion. And? siegi

You say the claims of Christianity are unlike any of the claims done by any other religions. Cool, might be. What are your rational justifications that being different adds a iota to the plausibility of the claim? I see none. If I did see one, I would simply declare a new religion that is vastly different from all other religions (not difficult) and claim that it must be true, because of that. It is obvious. that it is a non sequitur. So, do you have better evidence than that? siegi

Well, of course I require evidence. Everybody would. You are making strong claims concerning the Universe, what we should believe (or else...), behave, etc. And sorry, your word and what is written in a book is not sufficient. Consider my position. I am a young atheist that works in the field of theoretical physics. As such, I meet a lot of people of different cultures and creeds. Atheists, recently also Christians (themselves with many different beliefs concerning evolution hell, death penalty, LBGT issues...), Hindus, Muslims, etc. So, who should I even consider if I do not have external evidence to confirm them? Throw some dice? Believe in the one with the hottest hell? What? siegi

"It would be pretty dumb if me to suggest you debate with a book. You seem to be interested in the topic, so I’m offering a resource for you from someone more conversant on the topic than me." Ok, point taken. You look honest and I might consider reading that. I am just used to people not finding better rebuttals than spam me with youtube links and such. By the way, the name is not new to me, so I cannot exclude that I have already read that. I read so much that I am not sure anymore of what I already read and whatnot. But I usually give preference to authors who do not agree with me, so maybe I already read that. But if he is like WL Craig, then I do not expect much more than self referential proof based only in one book. Which is obvious, since there is no extra biblical evidence of any resurrection at all. "Even though they spent 3 years with Jesus, I suspect they still expected that Jesus would bring an end to Jewish oppression and establish a kingdom in earth. They didn’t understand the impact of Jesus’s life and teaching until after His death and resurrection." Jesus said very clearly that He will be betrayed, killed and, last but not least, that He will return on the third day. So, I am not sure where the source of their skepticism comes from. Assuming they were rational. I like to think that this is just the product of some author that favored emotions vs. logical consistency, but that is just me. Well, my explanation would pass the Hume test though siegi

Yet, it does not say anything about a resurrection. So, my case stands. Apart from the Bible, there is no evidence of any resurrection. Persecution, imprisonment, death, maybe. But these are things that happen, especially in the Roman Empire, and do not require, unlike resurrections, special evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Which, it seems, is to be found only in one book, with an agenda anyway. And sorry, I do not find indirect evidence convincing. Explosion of Christianity? Yes, but that was yesterday. Here in Germany Christianity is evaporating and Islam is exploding. Does that increase the plausibility of Allah? Hardly. In North Europe things are even worse. I would say the upper half of Europe will be totally de-christianized in a few generations. In Scandinavia, for instance, the Christian religion has the same exact status as things like Copyism (a new religion that consider copying files a sacred act). So, something for your missionaries (I promise we will not use arrows to keep them out). I mean it, I am not a fan of Islam, to put it mildly. And I am open minded. But open minded does not mean believing, or even considering, things whose only evidence is in a book that wants to advertise a certain creed anyway. That is, incidentally, the complain I receive when I show skepticism about things like astrology or homeopathy. Show me something more solid evidence, and I will be in. siegi