I really wouldn't feel good filling up the comment feed with many different post so I will just copy what I have into one reply.

@Dove
> The content and history of the Bible

The Bible tells several stories multiple times and the facts involved in different parts of those stories differ. Isn't it the case that the Bible was started many many years after the mericals from Jesus? Isn't it true that the different Christian denominations have many different versions of the Bible that include and cut out passages? Which version did God write? Having everyone get their word in on an ancient text is not how you establish that it is from God. Or are you willing to say that the Conservapedia Bible is God's latest iteration?
Whomever wrote it did not have the insight that to prove his claims he would have to use more than ancient text.

Don't forget self-fulfilling.

Many other religious texts are like this as well.

Didn't say that it doesn't have history.

> The historical fact of Jesus' resurrection

Doesn't that just mean that there were lots of stories going around at the time?

> Eleven of the twelve

So no one would die for a lie?

> The experience of the modern church

Weren't there are lot of new prophets around at the time, all trying to become the big one?

There are also people that the Bible affects terribly negatively.

That's good. There are also people who took the words of the Bible in the entirely opposite direction.

The flow of immigration is also appropriate for a message that preaches punishment for skepticism. That's what got Pascal.

> The Origin of the Universe

All three of these are unproven assertions. We can't make the claims about what we don't know. Not too long ago people were making the same claims about the planets and the stars. It's God of the gaps stuff.

Many points I did not respond to. As you said this stuff is debated in many other places and I mostly just wanted to say what I thought when I read it. When Christians are asked why they believe though, this type of stuff is usually not what is stated.

@Dove
> I think the most forceful thing to me is really the comprehensive case.

> universe
That's because "I don't know" is sometimes the most honest answer to a question. There are many things we don't know. We might try to extrapolate based on current theories (we don't know that Pluto will make a complete orbit around the Sun for example) and if we can't verify it then there many be things that we will never know but that doesn't mean that we should then go to an expert in the unknowable and have him spin tales of things that sound really good.

> bible

Ancient unreliable texts can't prove mericles any more than modern fiction.

> church, experience

What do you consider the atheist explainition to be?

> If you're a Christian, a lot of people think you're crazy, dumb, or both.

What's the statistic, like 93% of people in the US believe in God? What? You're arguing that the majority are the ones that are believing what they do without fear of ridicule. That's not how peer pressure works. Atheists are the most hated group in America. If you want pride or any other accolades you will find it on your side of the argument as well.  I will agree that there are smarmy repugnant a-hole atheists but I don't think that informs their beliefs and I also don't think that it is more common "on this side". It is the case that alien worshippers are atheist so I guess I am using the term to mean someone who is skeptic about religious claims.

@lotharbot
> The current subthread was touched off by your statement about "unreasonable" Christians relying on "experience" that you consider inadequate.

I think something was lost. When I talked about personal experience I said that I don't know how it relates to evidence. I said that it seems possible that tomorrow I could be one of those people. I could be out on a corner weeping how my alien wife left me and took the children again. I also said that such an experience would be closer to out of body experiences than unfalsifiable stuff.

I also see in a post from Dove that you both thought that I was referring to you when I was talking about ghosts and whitenoise. I meant that strictly as a small explanation of why I said that an experience can't be falsified and not a counter-explanation of something that is actually falsifiable.

As for the stuff I said when I said "Well it's so good to hear someone say that faith should involve the weighing of evidence and all that:" -----

> I have no indication (aside from these stories) that any of us suffer from hallucinations, paranoia, or other psychological issues; it's not like the guy on the back of the bus talking about alien abductions and lasers burning his legs and not knowing what city he's in.

That is an insulting characterization of abductees. Good job! :D … Just kidding. Really though: It's unfair to say that they suffer from some kind of problem. They had their experience and their claims are kooky because we know no similar experience but they do honestly believe it.

> If the God you say such things about proved Himself to be real, it wouldn't change the fact that you think He kind of sucks. So what would be the point of God proving Himself to you?

Doesn't God's message to everyone, whether they hate him or not, include "I exist?" If he wants a relationship with everyone ignoring the problems isn't going to help. While I am of the opinion that there is a lot of messed up stuff in this world, I was mostly joking when I said that. Also I have to ask, why is the pronoun capitalized when referring to God? Should I be doing that too?

> minor points

> bible

The main point of mine is that relying on ancient text is not a good way to get your point across. We have considerably better technology now that can record this stuff better if given the chance.

> core beliefs

Of you wouldn't consider the WBC to be people who follow the core of Christianity but just follow that one line in the old testament, a tiny difference, a little closer than everyone else?

@Dove
> interesting dilemma

I don't think that is the dilemma. Just like the alien abductee example, I believe you experienced something. Testing that seems to be out of reach at the moment but it might not be forever. If God does interact with the world all we need to do is find some way to test it.

> minimum wage

I just meant that to be some humor. Just a claim that I heard that I consider absurd.

@Dove
> Some really organized followers of his

The first three would need some evidence to back it up. In the event of the third and fifth we would have technology that would be used to record exactly what happened. Loki would be fine with me. It would prove that a God exists, not what type of one. The solipsist view would be just as possible as it is now, only there would be proof that that artificial world has deities. My only problem with the God theory is that I perceive a lack of evidence. So if the problems don't have to do with evidence it won't affect my reasoning.

Other miracles like Jesus' face on toast? I assure you, seven billion pieces of cheesecake and notes signed Yahweh would be something I would credit to God.

> so profoundly unlike him
Well, it would prove that a God exists. Maybe not yours.. Anyway, if not this than I'm sure God, being omnipresent, omniscient, and omni-somethingelse, can think of something equally compelling for the world.

@Dove
I think what I consider dumb changes based on my mood.. Sorry. Right now I don't think anything could be dumb as long as it doesn't look like it was taken from whale.to or timecube.com, but I'm sure that will change…