120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[bilby]

"I totally walked on storm-tossed waters the other day".

"Rubbish, you never did".

"All my mates saw me. Ask them".

"Well, they're your mates; They'll back you up even if you're a big fat liar".

"Well a load of other people saw me too".

"Oh, well in that case...".

 

[funinspace]

Bullshit at a modern level, from November 2016:

I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.

Yet the bullshitter pays no price for a steady stream of outlandish lies and deceit...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What's the evidence that our historical facts were not "made up"?

I'd say your "internal evidence" is clearly lacking in support of your claim about the Jesus miracle stories coming from mystery "onlookers".

It overwhelmingly supports the claim that NON-disciples were present in most cases, and that in at least some cases these ones did spread the story. Also that the ones healed were NON-disciples, and in some cases these also spread the story. In contrast to the JS miracles which were done in private locations where only JS disciples were present.

So, 'support' is yet another word that you don't understand.

Word nitpickings are not what's important.

What's important is this difference between the Jesus and the JS miracle stories, in the written accounts:

• Jesus miracle acts -- The scene shows NON-disciples present in significant numbers, and in some cases NON-disciples report later what happened, and also the person healed each time is a NON-disciple. There are only 2 or 3 exceptions to this pattern in the 30+ miracle stories. But

• Joseph Smith miracle acts -- The scene shows ONLY DISCIPLES present, most of whom had been under the spell of Smith's charisma for a long time, and the one healed every time is a JS Disciple. There are virtually no exceptions to this pattern.

The written accounts are all we have to go on, in both cases. Whatever flaws there may be in the accounts, this is the evidence to use for determining what happened, as with all alleged facts of history.

The fact that a story is consistent with a claim does not mean that it's evidence to support the claim.

Yes it is evidence supporting the claim, though not proof.

If the story dates from near the time of the claimed event, then it's evidence supporting the claim that the event happened, or that it happened as the "story" describes it. That someone said it happened is evidence that it happened. The "story" or the "claim" that something happened, written near to when the alleged event allegedly happened, is evidence that it happened, or happened that way, or it helps establish that it happened or at least gives "support" to the claim that it happened, or increases the probability that it happened.

If not, then there is virtually no "support" for any historical fact, or any fact about what happened 1000 or 2000 years ago.

If a "claim" or "story" saying it happened is not evidence, then we have no "history," because 99% of our known history is based on claims or "stories" or written accounts saying something happened.

You still cannot show ANYONE transmitting the story external to the biblical authors or any . . .

That's true of ALL historical facts. I.e., for any historical fact, you cannot show anyone transmitting it external to the authors who wrote that it happened.

The "biblical authors" are the writers who transmitted this event. Obviously if you exclude them, there's no one left who significantly transmitted this event. Just like if you exclude all those who wrote of the Julius Caesar assassination, then there's no one else you can show who transmitted this event. So then this event must not have happened? because if we exclude those who wrote of it that leaves no one who transmitted it?

You think you can eliminate historical facts by noting that no one transmitted them external to those who wrote of it? Why do you keep coming up with reasons why it couldn't have happened which are also reasons why NO event of history could have happened?

. . . or any evidence the miracle stories weren't made up on the spot.

But you can say that about much or all our known historical facts. There's no evidence that they were not made up. I.e., the documents reporting them could have just made it all up.

It's true that much of it is verified by multiple documents, but also much of it is NOT verified by anything but comes from one source only. The Jesus miracle events are reported in 4 (5) sources near the time of the events, and so we have more verification for this than for much of our record for ancient historical events.

We have the same evidence that they were not made up as we have that other historical facts were not made up. Written documents saying something happened are evidence that it happened and was not made up. Without those documents, we'd have no evidence that the "historical record" we've been taught wasn't just made up. Or rather, we'd have no historical record, because this is provided mostly by the documents which say the events happened.

So the Gospels are evidence that the events happened and were not made up, similar to other historical events. Not proof, but evidence, and if no other evidence contradicts them, then this evidence makes it more probable that those events happened than if we had no evidence, i.e., documents saying it happened.

But you could be right that ALL the reported past events were made up, because the documents reporting the events might have made it all up, which means there's no evidence to "support" any past history, according to you.

And so your best argument why we can't accept the Gospels and the Paul epistles for anything historical is that no documents can be accepted for anything historical, so there is no known history, because all that evidence (documents) might have just made it up.

Even for recent history we really have no evidence, because all those recordings could have just made up that stuff. Like the moon landing, the 9-11 attack, etc. No one can prove that it wasn't all made up. Even people who remember the Twin Towers might have had their memories tampered with. You can't prove it isn't all a massive hoax.

Maybe you're on to something. Keep us informed on your crusade to debunk all our known history because it's just "made up."

 

[DBT]

• Jesus miracle acts -- The scene shows NON-disciples present in significant numbers, and in some cases NON-disciples report later what happened, and also the person healed each time is a NON-disciple. There are only 2 or 3 exceptions to this pattern in the 30+ miracle stories

It is the source material itself that describes these events, including those who are claimed to be present. This is not how supporting evidence is supposed to work.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What's the evidence that our historical facts were not "made up"?

The fact that historians look for corroboration, in order to consider it a 'fact,' would
literally
be 'the answer to your question, Lumpy.

Actually 'literally.'

And you don't understand what 'corroboration' means.

It's also ALWAYS been important, in evaluating historical accounts, to know WHO wrote the account, WHEN they wrote it, and what their purpose was. We can't always know perfectly, but things accepted as history tend to have a lost more of these facts known than the biblical gospels do.

 

[Keith&Co.]

• Jesus miracle acts -- The scene shows NON-disciples present in significant numbers, and in some cases NON-disciples report later what happened, and also the person healed each time is a NON-disciple. There are only 2 or 3 exceptions to this pattern in the 30+ miracle stories

It is the source material itself that describes these events, including those who are claimed to be present. This is not how supporting evidence is supposed to work.

Well, he's not really interested in how things are SUPPOSED to work. He's busy shaping everything to the conclusion he wants to be true.

Then he throws tantrums.

Posts walls of text to punish critics, the forum version of raising your voice to drown everyone out.

Rants about ALL history being as suspicious as unsupported fairy tales, because if HE can't have HIS favorite myth be history, then NO ONE should have any history.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Even for recent history we really have no evidence, because all those recordings could have just made up that stuff. Like the moon landing, the 9-11 attack, etc. No one can prove that it wasn't all made up. Even people who remember the Twin Towers might have had their memories tampered with. You can't prove it isn't all a massive hoax.

This is, of course, why you're not being taken seriously on this forum.

From the very beginning, we've been saying that miracle stories, unfeasible or impossible stories, need MORE evidence, more support, than more pedestrian history, in order to be taken seriously as historical events.

Now you try to pretend that accepted history is just as suspect as miracle stories, but you do it by suggesting unfeasible and impossible possibilities. The sheer size of the conspiracies necessary to make such events hoaxes would mean that the 'hoax' is the reality for the majority of the population. Who's left to be misled?
And what technology is available to make wide-spread memory altering possible?

So even your attempts at countering the demands of history show you're illiterate in the subject.

Look, YOU want to believe in Jesus as the son of God, and the path to salvation, no one wants to take that away.

You want people not to point and laugh at you for having that belief, you just have to be careful about where you announce it.

You want everyone to accept your limited and self-serving version of Christainity, or at least acknowledge that it makes sense to believe what you do? That's a steep slope. You might want to evaluate what you're accomplishing here, and what you need to accomplish in order to get into the afterlife with a pat on the back from Jesus.

 

[funinspace]

Ah, regurgitating stuff from a year plus ago that has already been dealt with from several angles...from 1 to 2 years ago.

So, 'support' is yet another word that you don't understand.

Word nitpickings are not what's important.

What's important is this difference between the Jesus and the JS miracle stories, in the written accounts:

• Jesus miracle acts -- The scene shows NON-disciples present in significant numbers, and in some cases NON-disciples report later what happened, and also the person healed each time is a NON-disciple. There are only 2 or 3 exceptions to this pattern in the 30+ miracle stories. But

Ah, more fan fiction about those purported 'NON-disciples'. We know nothing outside the stories passed down by the disciples, about those purported NON-disciples. I've challenged you more than a few times to present a mainstream theologian who argues this BS as you do that 'NON-disciples report later what happened' as people who passed on the tales. So far we have army of silent crickets from you...

• Joseph Smith miracle acts -- The scene shows ONLY DISCIPLES present, most of whom had been under the spell of Smith's charisma for a long time, and the one healed every time is a JS Disciple. There are virtually no exceptions to this pattern.

Ah, one of your hobby horse MHRC puzzle pieces again... And again, it has already been addressed a long time ago with 2 obvious examples:

Anyway, here is one JS miracle as written by Wilford Woodruff (yes a deciple), published within a book (from his journals) in 1882 some 4 decades after the events in question. This is much in line with the assumed dates for the (missing) original manuscripts of Matthew and Luke by the anonymous authors.

Leaves From My Journal; Third book of the Faith-Promoting Series; by Pressident W. Woodruff; 1882; page 65. And “The Prophet” is JS, which is clear when reading more of the passage from the book.
https://archive.org/stream/leavesfrommyjour00woodrich#page/64/mode/2up/search/ferry

While waiting for the ferryboat, a man of the world, knowing of the miracles which had been performed, came to him and asked him if he would not go and heal two twin children of his, about five months old, who were both lying sick nigh unto death.

They were some two miles from Montrose.

The Prophet said he could not go; but, after pausing some time, he said he would send someone to heal them; and he turned to me [Wilford Woodruff] and said: “You go with the man and heal his children.”

He took a red silk handkerchief out of his pocket and gave it to me, and told me to wipe their faces with the handkerchief when I administered to them, and they should be healed. He also said unto me: “As long as you will keep that handkerchief, it shall remain a league between you and me.”

I went with the man, and did as the Prophet commanded me, and the children were healed.

Again, you are splitting hairs. The text clearly posits that JS was channeling his God’s woo woo, to heal people.

But either way, 2 pages before offers this on Page 62:

On the morning of the 22nd of July, 1839, he arose reflecting upon the situation of the Saints of God in their persecutions and afflictions, and he called upon the Lord in prayer, and the power of God rested upon him mightily, and as Jesus healed all the sick around Him in His day, so Joseph, the Prophet of God, healed all around on this occasion. He healed all in his house and door-yard, then, in company with Sidney Rigdon and several of the Twelve, he went through among the sick lying on the bank of the river, and he commanded them in a loud voice, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come up and be made whole, and they were all healed.

The written accounts are all we have to go on, in both cases. Whatever flaws there may be in the accounts, this is the evidence to use for determining what happened, as with all alleged facts of history.

Just wow, the bullshit... The written accounts aren't all 'we' have to go on in both cases, just in your strange Jesus-mono-god case (as you toss most of the Christian Bible into the dumpster). We know exactly who wrote the JS/LDS tales, when they wrote it (sometimes down to the day), and we know these are real people from history as there is plenty of outside details about them.

 

[funinspace]

Good grief, this shit again...

. . . or any evidence the miracle stories weren't made up on the spot.

But you can say that about much or all our known historical facts. There's no evidence that they were not made up. I.e., the documents reporting them could have just made it all up.

It's true that much of it is verified by multiple documents, but also much of it is NOT verified by anything but comes from one source only. The Jesus miracle events are reported in 4 (5) sources near the time of the events, and so we have more verification for this than for much of our record for ancient historical events.

Again, from a year ago:

I don't know of anyone here who has said that only because the gospel accounts are "anonymous", they are not credible. That is just Lumpy's pretend punching bag he keeps attacking... Besides time and distance, it also includes discounting the conflicting birthing narratives of GMatt & GLuke and the forged ending of GMark (as Lumpy has acknowledged). It also includes a bizarre forced march census' that never happened; Harod's killing of the babies that didn't happen; the earthquake and blood red sky that no one bothered to record; Jesus' quoted attachment to the old Jewish fables as if they were real; fake Davidian genealogies; and one Roman reference to Pilate, where he was recalled back to Rome as he was too brutal even for their tastes...not quite the patsy of the gospels.

It doesn’t matter whether King Egbert of Wessex drove Wiglaf, the king of Mercia, into exile or if the Vikings killed Wiglaf. But one of those options is far more likely than the other. I know George Washington existed and I accept much of the history about him. Yet I don’t buy the cherry tree or wooden teeth myths. People regularly set aside the BS injected into history, even if we don’t always know when made-up shit gets thru simply because it reasonably could be true.

You want the synoptic gospels to be 3 sources along with Paul’s letters.

The number of sources is fact, regardless what someone wants.

We don't choose what the sources are. We have 4 sources about the healing miracles, or 5 about the resurrection. The scholars/experts/researchers have turned up these separate documents. Just because there is content which overlaps them does not mean they are less than 4 (5) sources.

Yes, these Gospels exist. Yes, they are sources of information, just as the Marcion attempt at a single Gospel is also a source of information; as is the Gospel of Thomas. However, that does not establish that they are independent sources.

Hey, look some Christian blowhard thinks 5,800 NT manuscripts means something, why not run with that?
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared

What about the manuscripts? Here the New Testament is far superior to its classical companions. Our earliest manuscripts start appearing within decades of the writing. The fragment p52 is dated around AD 125. It only has a few portions of John 18, but it starts a trail that has full manuscripts of the Gospels appearing by the fourth century. The number of Greek manuscripts we have of the New Testament up to the time of the printing press is more than 5,800. The wording of the New Testament, including the Gospels, is extremely solid. Unclear spots often appear with an “or” note in Bible margins that record such differences.

Or maybe take the word of the dozens of esteemed Christian theologians involved with the development and release of the New Oxford Annotated Bible:

I also like what the forward to GMark in The New Oxford Annotated Bible; NRSV with the Apocrypha; an Ecumenical Study Bible says: "Mark is by far the shortest of the four canonical Gospels and is generally thought to be the earliest, and to have been used in the composition of both Matthew and Luke".

Or the well known 2-source-hypothesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis

The Two-source hypothesis (or 2SH) is an explanation for the synoptic problem, the pattern of similarities and differences between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It posits that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were based on the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection from the Christian oral tradition called Q.
<snip>
The Two-Source Hypothesis was first articulated in 1838 by Christian Hermann Weisse, but it did not gain wide acceptance among German critics until Heinrich Julius Holtzmann endorsed it in 1863.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Hermann_Weisse

Weisse was the first theologian to propose the two-source hypothesis (1838), which is still held by a majority of biblical scholars today. In the two-source hypothesis, the Gospel of Mark was the first gospel to be written and was one of two sources to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, the other source being the Q document, a lost collection of Jesus's sayings.

I see one source gradually exaggerated and expanded into what we now know as the synoptic gospels.

If it makes you feel good to "see" or pretend the number of sources is fewer than the 4 or 5 (the correct number), then no one can force the facts into you to contradict your visions. But you are fantasizing and inventing your own set of facts to suit your ideological commitment in artificially reducing the number of sources.

You are funny….pretend…LOL Yeah, Dr. Feel Good…

I feel good about pretending to agree with the 2-source hypothesis (Q & Mark) that most theologians ascribe to. Then we have Paul’s letters, from a guy who never met this Jesus; and the psychedelic Gospel of John that is said to have been written circa 80-90CE per the same New Oxford Annotated Bible.

 

[funinspace]

Even for recent history we really have no evidence, because all those recordings could have just made up that stuff. Like the moon landing, the 9-11 attack, etc. No one can prove that it wasn't all made up. Even people who remember the Twin Towers might have had their memories tampered with. You can't prove it isn't all a massive hoax.

This is, of course, why you're not being taken seriously on this forum.

That one is a doozy! That is seriously messed up....

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What is the meaning of the goofy "Rejection at Nazareth" story?

Matthew 13

⁵⁷ And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

⁵⁸ And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

So, where are we going with this? Is this just supposed to be today's devotional Bible verse, to be recited reverentially without any comment?

Is the point supposed to be the "he did not many mighty works there"? meaning the miracle claims are fiction, because this verse says he didn't do "mighty works there"?

If you take this passage at face value, it clearly implies that Jesus did perform miracle acts at other times and places than this one occasion.

But there is something wrong with this passage. First, we have a saying here which makes no sense:

But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Where does this come from?

This saying is contained in ALL FOUR of the Gospels, not just Matthew. Plus also even in the Gospel of Thomas.

But nothing like it is found anywhere else in all the ancient literature. And, there is nothing in the ancient literature or history to suggest any pattern of prophets being without honor or rejected in their own country.

Who were the ancient "prophets"?

In addition to Moses, Samuel, Jeremiah, and other Hebrew prophets, there are also "prophets" like Lao-Tse, Zoroaster, Confucius, Gautama, Krishna. And there is no pattern of them being without honor in their home country.

Perhaps by an extreme stretch you could say Socrates was a "prophet" dishonored in his home town, since the authorities tried and executed him. But obviously he was much more honored in Athens than dishonored. Surely this one case cannot be any basis for this saying. The saying simply makes no sense and seems to contradict our known history of prophets in general.

So if you want to make something out of this verse, you need to explain why it offers us this saying which contradicts our knowledge and common sense. The saying must have circulated as something spoken by Jesus, but it could have been falsely attributed to him.

The saying has to be early, and was probably circulating long before the Gospels we know were written. So it has an early-origin authenticity to it, and yet there's no need to assume Jesus actually spoke it.

But there's more that's wrong with this passage:

And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

The sentence here contradicts the text 3 lines earlier:

54 and coming to his own country he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? . . .

"mighty works"? This says he did perform "mighty works" there, while vs. 58 says he did not.

. . . 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?" 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house." 58 And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.

The Mark version (5:1-5) contains the same contradiction:

1 He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him. 2 And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands!

This says he did "mighty works," while 3 lines farther down it says he could not, though adding as an afterthought that he healed "a few sick people":

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. 4 And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house." 5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them.

So the Mark author couldn't make up his mind whether Jesus did a mighty deed or not.

In sum:

We have a saying which is false and for which we need an explanation.

And the text clearly implies that Jesus did perform miracles, but that for some reason he was unable to do any miracle act at this place (Nazareth) at this one time.

And, it's impossible that this story, the Rejection at Nazareth, could have been invented later by the Gospel writers in 70-100 AD. They must have taken this story from an early source, because there is no way any of them would have invented a story that Jesus could not perform a miracle at a particular time or place.

So there must have been a rumor of some kind, very early, probably around 30 AD, saying that Jesus was unable to perform any miracle at Nazareth on at least this one occasion. Which clearly implies that he did perform such acts at other times and places.

Furthermore, the Luke account contains an insult to Jesus: "Physician, cure yourself!" The context of this insult is made obscure in the Luke text, which seems to have Jesus giving excuses why he refused to perform any miracle in Nazareth:

Luke 4: and they said, "Is not this Joseph's son?" 23 And he said to them, "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, 'Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Caper'na-um, do here also in your own country.'" 24 And he said, "Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his own country. 25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Eli'jah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there came a great famine over all the land; 26 and Eli'jah was sent to none of them but only to Zar'ephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Eli'sha; and none of them was cleansed, but only Na'aman the Syrian." 28 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. 29 And they rose up and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.

What's an explanation of all this? Who was this person they tried to throw over a cliff? a person who is being treated like a charlatan, claiming he could do miracles but in this case giving excuses why he will not?

Why did the Gospel writers include an incident where it seems Jesus is not the same as in other places where he did perform these acts, but here says he won't, and is insulted by someone implying that he is sick?

This person does not seem to be the same one described elsewhere who healed the woman who touched his garment as he walked by, and the leper who came and asked to be healed, and the blind, etc. This one "Rejection at Nazareth" story seems to be describing a totally different person, who acted this way one time only, at this one place only. Might it have been a different person?

However you explain it, the account implies that Jesus did perform miracles at other times and places, and it is a very early story which the Gospel writers did not "make up." Rather, they included it because it was in their sources. The Gospel writers included the good and the bad with their accounts of Jesus, even this incident which makes him look bad. Perhaps they tried to "whitewash" it in order to obscure the bad element, but they included it rather than censoring it.

There is no way to twist this story into something to debunk the miracle claims. For that you'd have to explain why it's only at Nazareth and nowhere else where such a thing is reported.

 

[DBT]

Claims of miraculous doings and events are not restricted to the bible, or Nazareth.

List of Eight Types of Miracles (Ashta Ma Sddhis)

Hindus are the only race in the world to categorise the miracles and gave examples for every kind of miracle in the mythologies or in the life of hundreds of saints. Though we hear about miracles done by other religious leaders, Hindus divided them into eight crystal clear types. They took this branch of science more seriously than others.

Siddhar is one who attained Siddhi i.e. special psychic and supernatural powers, which has been defined to be eight fold in the science of yoga.

1.Anima : power of becoming the size of an atom and entering into smallest life.

2.Mahima : power of becoming mighty and co-extensive with the universe.

3.Laghima : capacity to be light, though big in size

4.Garima : capacity to be heavy though seeming small in size

5.Prapthi : capacity to enter all the worlds from Brahmaloka to Pathalam

6.Prakasyam : power of disembodying and entering into other bodies and going to heaven and enjoying whatever one wants from one place

7.Isithvam : having the creative power of God and control over the sun, the moon and the elements

 

[Lion IRC]

Yeah we know
The bible includes heaps of miracles performed by pagans.
Nobody said supernatural phenomenon were the exclusive domain of Christianity.

 

[Lion IRC]

Citing the prevalence of extra-biblical supernatural claims doesn't help the cause of atheism surely?

 

[DBT]

Yeah we know
The bible includes heaps of miracles performed by pagans.
Nobody said supernatural phenomenon were the exclusive domain of Christianity.

I was responding to this remark;

There is no way to twist this story into something to debunk the miracle claims. For that you'd have to explain why it's only at Nazareth and nowhere else where such a thing is reported

- - - Updated - - -

Citing the prevalence of extra-biblical supernatural claims doesn't help the cause of atheism surely?

The point was; the claim of miracles alone does not prove the realty of miracles.

 

[Lion IRC]

You just debunked the scientific method.
The claim of a miracle is based on the evidence of the senses.
If we are going to dismiss scientists who claim they saw something in a microscope/telescope because the claim itself doesn't count as evidence/proof then what else is there?
You can argue about whether the thing they saw was a "miracle" or how we should interpret the observations (philosophy of science) but to dismiss the claim itself is about as unscientific and closed-minded as you can get.

 

[Juma]

You just debunked the scientific method.
The claim of a miracle is based on the evidence of the senses.
If we are going to dismiss scientists who claim they saw something in a microscope/telescope because the claim itself doesn't count as evidence/proof then what else is there?
You can argue about whether the thing they saw was a "miracle" or how we should interpret the observations (philosophy of science) but to dismiss the claim itself is about as unscientific and closed-minded as you can get.

There must be something for others to investigate, to repeat their observation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There must be something for others to investigate, to repeat their observation.

You just debunked Lion's caricature of the scientific method...

 

[Lion IRC]

It's no caricature pal!
DBT said the claim of "x" doesn't prove "x".

Well what IS the purpose of any claim? All evidence is derived from the senses so we have nothing but claims about what was seen/heard.

I can't do anything but claim (believe) that I saw something in a telescope/microscope and the same is true of the person who corroborates (repeats) my observation. So at what point do claims become proof/evidence? Even tentative falsifiability doesn't help because it too relies on counter CLAIMS.

Keith&Co no doubt uses the ignore button here and in real life so I'm not surprised he is ignorant of basic philosophy of science.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's no caricature pal!
DBT said the claim of "x" doesn't prove "x".

Well what IS the purpose of any claim? All evidence is derived from the senses so we have nothing but claims about what was seen/heard.

I can't do anything but claim (believe) that I saw something in a telescope/microscope and the same is true of the person who corroborates (repeats) my observation. So at what point do claims become proof/evidence? Even tentative falsifiability doesn't help because it too relies on counter CLAIMS.

Keith&Co no doubt uses the ignore button here and in real life so I'm not surprised he is ignorant of basic philosophy of science.

That's funny.

Please walk up to the nearest brick wall. See it? But it might just be your senses, you know, can''t really know if it's there or not.

Now get close enough to smack it with your head. Now close your eyes and try to smack it really hard with your head, just to find out if it is really there.

Let me know how it works out.