I already gave you one
You seem to think eye witness accounts are the best method of forming conclusions about reality. You are wrong and it's blatant. Humans have a knack for mis-remembering real events and concocting wild fantasies.
So, then how do you explain my mother's prediction more than ten years in advance that she would be separated from my father when she was 40, and the
eerie accuracy?
My two siblings and I, as well as numerous relatives and close family friends, all know about that prediction - and have known since
before it happened.
And what about the events in the New Testament, which have been historically lined up with accounts from people outside of both the Jewish and Christian faith? For example, Jesus' existence and miracles, which have also been recorded in the journals of Roman officials.
You seem to think eye witness accounts are the best method of forming conclusions about reality. You are wrong and it's blatant.
No, I'm not saying that it's the best method. You're nitpicking inaccurately and falsely portraying my words.
Humans have a knack for mis-remembering real events and concocting wild fantasies.
May I bring to mind the numerous times throughout history, even in the last few hundred years when people considered themselves highly advanced compared to previous centuries, when scientists were flat-out wrong about all sorts of "laws" concerning physics?
And if you actually do the searching, you can find an extensive amount of scientists and researchers who are recognized by intellectual communities who have studied the Bible and confirmed that it would be virtually impossible and entirely unreasonable for the Bible to have been written and created by people, particularly when the Bible, especially the Old Testament, can be traced beyond a shred of doubt to such early times.
Your fallacious premises.
1. We have accounts of magical events occurring
2. Therefore, we should believe these accounts on absolutely no empirical data.
Even overlooking your incorrect use of the term "magical", your second point isn't entirely supported. There
is sufficient evidence, proof, empirical data, whatever you choose to call it, for many of the events that are recorded in the Bible. Keep in mind: It's also a
book of history.
I'm
really not going to read that...
REALLY? The New Testament doesn't even follow the Historical Method.
-video-
-video-
You have to be joking
I'm 1:20 into the first video, and I'm already cringing at the bias that the video has. It's making incredibly narrow-minded and flat-out incorrect statements, and continuing to make other assumptions and claims based off of their previous.. pardon my usage of the word..
ignorant statements.
This is an issue that a lot of videos of this type have - if they make it sound professional and use big words, they make it sound
convincing and
truthful, even if that's not the case.
I might go back later and watch the rest of the video(s), because knowledge is something that I normally pursue, but I'm on a time limit, and I have a lot that I'd like to say and limited energy.
Another false assumption.
I already covered my bases by saying:
and if you're not just saying that arbitrarily, it'd be much appreciated if you could PM/reply with more details about the errors in my argument (which I may be able to refute/explained when pointed out) so that I can further improve my arguments in the future.
and if you re-read my concern about argumentative videos a few lines above this, that can also be applied to situations similar to this, in certain regards.
So, it's a principal that people use. It's a guideline.
Is it written in stone that it's
always true? Not that I can see.
Sure, people can and do use it. They can go ahead and do so - but unless there's a part of that principal that I missed, I don't see why it
has to be applied, or why it's undoubtedly true for this.
Tenebrous12321, something that we should both keep in mind is that we're supposed to be discussing Bito's friend and offering advice, not having a spat about whether or not Christianity (or religion in general) is verifiable.
I've drifted off-topic, you've drifted off-topic, we've both drifted off-topic.
I'm not as good at arguing, debating, and discussing as I used to be, so I wouldn't be surprised if I have loopholes in my logic. However, that's not to say that there are loopholes in my religion - I don't claim to be a spokesperson who's representing all of Christianity.
But before I go back
on-topic, I should say one thing:
You're ignoring the element of FAITH.
This overarching debate naturally leans towards the disprovement of the religion in question. However, the reason that it's
still such a popular and highly discussed topic is because one half have
faith that motivates them to keep trying over and over again.
Anyways. So, Bito's friend.
One of my friends, like many teenagers, is questioning her religious beliefs,
Really, the safest and least devastating option would be to search for another Christian denomination that she can agree with.
If she stays with her current religion, I think she will live an overall happier life because she will fit in with friends and family better. There's also the comfort of just belonging to a religion. Ignorance is often bliss. But if she moves on to something else, such as atheism, I believe she will be closer to the real truth about the universe, which is what our fundamental belief systems are about.
Speaking as if I was a non-believer of Christianity:
If she's not actively trying to find the meaning of life, the reason behind our existence, and the truth about the universe, then just let her stick with the religious path. But if she's the type of person who wants to know about all of that stuff, then help her learn what you have found to be the closest to the truth, but let her ease into it. Take it in measured steps.
ahh i'm too sleepy for this
Edit: Oh, and by the way, I didn't use that World Daily News thingy or whatever it's called as my source for the red sea stuff. I was actually shown it by an older acquaintance who's studying theology, and he had a whole presentation that he showed to an audience.
Edit 2: I'm going through the second video because it's a bit funnier, and I'm finding flaws in the answers that the makers of the video provided. If this keeps happening for
all of the quiz questions, as it has been so far, then I'll be able to
logically and
truthfully state that the video is not giving a proper portrayal of the Bible and its contents, and therefore it cannot be used to say that the Bible contradicts itself.
Edit 3: Just finished checking every question up to and including the speed round, and I don't see any point in continuing - in many questions they're very frequently mixing up the law of the land, as laid out by men, and the law of their faith, as laid out by God. They're also giving answers as if there were no room for translation and multiple interpretations, which there
are.
You might be of a differing opinion, and that's fine, but I personally would not consider this a video to be shown to even an atheist crowd of researchers.
