Prove your beliefs are correct.

[Sir Kyle of Elsewhere]

If you follow a religion, and believe in such myths deeply, then I ask anybody to step up to the plate and prove them to be true. Here are the rules:

1. You must prove it to me without stating the belief is proof of itself.
2. You have the burden of proof. Not me, so the tables don't turn.

[OneEyedPurplePeopleEater]

Jesus said dat tru fayth al ting r posible.

i got layyyed pirate

[anonymous attributes]

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

If you follow a religion, and believe in such myths deeply, then I ask anybody to step up to the plate and prove them to be true. Here are the rules:

1. You must prove it to me without stating the belief is proof of itself.
2. You have the burden of proof. Not me, so the tables don't turn.

I don't understand the OP, are you asking for people to bring their myths here and prove them? How do you prove a myth? you already set it up.

[OneEyedPurplePeopleEater]

anonymous attributes

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

If you follow a religion, and believe in such myths deeply, then I ask anybody to step up to the plate and prove them to be true. Here are the rules:

1. You must prove it to me without stating the belief is proof of itself.
2. You have the burden of proof. Not me, so the tables don't turn.

I don't understand the OP, are you asking for people to bring their myths here and prove them? How do you prove a myth? you already set it up.

i dun provd min mrgreen

[Sir Kyle of Elsewhere]

anonymous attributes

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

If you follow a religion, and believe in such myths deeply, then I ask anybody to step up to the plate and prove them to be true. Here are the rules:

1. You must prove it to me without stating the belief is proof of itself.
2. You have the burden of proof. Not me, so the tables don't turn.

I don't understand the OP, are you asking for people to bring their myths here and prove them? How do you prove a myth? you already set it up.

I call them myths, but others call them Gods.

[anonymous attributes]

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

anonymous attributes

Sir Kyle of Elsewhere

If you follow a religion, and believe in such myths deeply, then I ask anybody to step up to the plate and prove them to be true. Here are the rules:

1. You must prove it to me without stating the belief is proof of itself.
2. You have the burden of proof. Not me, so the tables don't turn.

I don't understand the OP, are you asking for people to bring their myths here and prove them? How do you prove a myth? you already set it up.

I call them myths, but others call them Gods.

Buddhism has no God. Do you know what you are talking about?

[Lady Vizsla]

There are many ways I suppose I could approach the reason I am a theist. But the simplest reasons are that I believe the beginning, structure, and order of the universe implies the existence of a superintellect rather than a series of chance/lucky accidents. In terms of religion, I find Christianity most credible based on historicity.

[ratgirl34]

Lady Kariel

There are many ways I suppose I could approach the reason I am a theist. But the simplest reasons are that I believe the beginning, structure, and order of the universe implies the existence of a superintellect rather than a series of chance/lucky accidents. In terms of religion, I find Christianity most credible based on historicity.

Just out of curiosity, what makes other religions less appealing? Many of them also have historical facts in their holy books and such.

[Lady Vizsla]

ratgirl34

Lady Kariel

There are many ways I suppose I could approach the reason I am a theist. But the simplest reasons are that I believe the beginning, structure, and order of the universe implies the existence of a superintellect rather than a series of chance/lucky accidents. In terms of religion, I find Christianity most credible based on historicity.

Just out of curiosity, what makes other religions less appealing? Many of them also have historical facts in their holy books and such.

True, but when I say Christianity, I mean Judeo-Christianity. As in Judaism as well as Christianity. In terms of the fluidity and interconnectedness of the two, I find they hold the most credibility because they seem consistent to me though authored by 40+ prophets, kings etc.
As for Islam, the religion bases a lot off of Judaism in terms of its original prophets and holy men and the religion seems to me, too young and being written by one person who made no major prophetic predictions, I am unconvinced.
Other religions like Buddhism, Hinduism etc. claim no gods or millions of gods respectively which for me seems far more mythical and unsubstantiated. I can't believe in reincarnations because I really don't see credible evidence for it. As for resurrection, hundreds claimed to have seen Christ alive after his death and so coupled with the testimony of many, I see that as more grounded in historicity.

[CuAnnan]

Lady Kariel

True, but when I say Christianity, I mean Judeo-Christianity. As in Judaism as well as Christianity. In terms of the fluidity and interconnectedness of the two, I find they hold the most credibility because they seem consistent to me though authored by 40+ prophets, kings etc

What the what?
The book of Genesis is inconsistent.
The first two chapters directly contradict each other.
The various Gospels disagree about the order of several things.
The bible is anything but consistent.
I'm all for faith-based religions, but when your faith drives you to say things that are demonstrably incorrect to a degree that we can map it in infograms, that's not faith it's fanaticism or possibly basic illiteracy.

Lady Kariel

I can't believe in reincarnations because I really don't see credible evidence for it. As for resurrection, hundreds claimed to have seen Christ alive after his death and so coupled with the testimony of many, I see that as more grounded in historicity.

Well done on describing for the class what a confirmation bias is and why it should be kept in check.

[Lady Vizsla]

CuAnnan

Lady Kariel

True, but when I say Christianity, I mean Judeo-Christianity. As in Judaism as well as Christianity. In terms of the fluidity and interconnectedness of the two, I find they hold the most credibility because they seem consistent to me though authored by 40+ prophets, kings etc

What the what?
The book of Genesis is inconsistent.
The first two chapters directly contradict each other.
The various Gospels disagree about the order of several things.
The bible is anything but consistent.
I'm all for faith-based religions, but when your faith drives you to say things that are demonstrably incorrect to a degree that we can map it in infograms, that's not faith it's fanaticism or possibly basic illiteracy.

Lady Kariel

I can't believe in reincarnations because I really don't see credible evidence for it. As for resurrection, hundreds claimed to have seen Christ alive after his death and so coupled with the testimony of many, I see that as more grounded in historicity.

Well done on describing for the class what a confirmation bias is and why it should be kept in check.

Genesis 1 provides a chronological account of what was done on each day of the week whereas Genesis 2 zooms in on day six and shows some of the events of that day.
The Gospels have to disagree because they're mainly independently written. So it is expected there would be some of the same accounts but reported differently by each author. If they were in complete harmony, frankly, that would be suspicious.

If confirmation bias is based off of testimony, maybe I shouldn't believe the experiences of anyone.

[CuAnnan]

Lady Kariel

Genesis 1 provides a chronological account of what was done on each day of the week whereas Genesis 2 zooms in on day six and shows some of the events of that day.

Only if you project that meaning onto a text which does not implicitly say that at all in any way even remotely a little even if you squint.

Lady Kariel

The Gospels have to disagree because they're mainly independently written. So it is expected there would be some of the same accounts but reported differently by each author.

So they're consistent except where they're not.
Right.

Lady Kariel

If confirmation bias is based off of testimony, maybe I shouldn't believe the experiences of anyone.

You shouldn't only accept the testimony of those who believe as you do or, as I suspect you're doing, only search for testimony among those who do so.
Because there is no shortage of people claiming time spent with Vishnu, Annan, The First Spirit and so on.

[Lady Vizsla]

CuAnnan

Lady Kariel

Genesis 1 provides a chronological account of what was done on each day of the week whereas Genesis 2 zooms in on day six and shows some of the events of that day.

Only if you project that meaning onto a text which does not implicitly say that at all in any way even remotely a little even if you squint.

Lady Kariel

The Gospels have to disagree because they're mainly independently written. So it is expected there would be some of the same accounts but reported differently by each author.

So they're consistent except where they're not.
Right.

Lady Kariel

If confirmation bias is based off of testimony, maybe I shouldn't believe the experiences of anyone.

You shouldn't only accept the testimony of those who believe as you do or, as I suspect you're doing, only search for testimony among those who do so.
Because there is no shortage of people claiming time spent with Vishnu, Annan, The First Spirit and so on.

The text doesn't say so, but that is garnered from a simple reading of both chapters.
That is what you would expect from individual reporting yes. Similar to watching a report about the same event on CNN and BBC. Same elements reported but of course with differences.
Of course, there are people who even claim visitations of the Virgin Mary, but regardless of who you choose to believe, any position would be accepted based on faith. Then there is the issue of an empty tomb, prophecy etc

[CuAnnan]

Lady Kariel

The text doesn't say so, but that is garnered from a simple reading of both chapters.

No. It is not.
Not even remotely
What is garnered is "these two paragraphs directly contradict each other".
Your metanarrative is not supported by a literal reading of the text.

Lady Kariel

Similar to watching a report about the same event on CNN and BBC.

Only difference is, not only is it the same report on the same channel with the same presenter, there's only thirty seconds in between.

Lady Kariel

Of course, there are people who even claim visitations of the Virgin Mary, but regardless of who you choose to believe, any position would be accepted based on faith.

But you're presenting your faith as proof.

Lady Kariel

Then there is the issue of an empty tomb, prophecy etc

No there isn't.
Because the empty tomb is just a story with no actual evidence except the story and every single world religion with propehcies that I can think of points to readings of prophecies that say the prophecy has come true. Because all prophecy is interpreted.