I experienced it firsthand. Duh.
That's right, I had an encounter with Jesus.
True to you. So good for you. I don't see how that proves anything else. All the rest is billionth-hand, by no means first hand.
Try firsthand. When you meet a supernatural being, the idea that he died long ago and that's it, that's so incredibly far off the mark that you have to scoff at it. There's a reason why precursor Jesus figures were considered literal gods. People understood that the person they encountered was somehow not quite a normal human.
Encountering a somehow not quite a normal human doesn't mean that the somehow not quite a normal human is the son of god. We've all encountered you - Are you the son of god? 
As appealing as it might be to claim that, do I do things consistent with Son of God? Do I behave like you'd expect Jesus to behave? Have I turned water into wine lately? I have not shown you anything supernatural about me. The best I could do is show you stock pictures of water followed by pictures of alcohol. But no, there were things about the this person that really seemed off. Like, given everything I knew about them, they would have to be in multiple places at the same time and/or shapeshift.
A shapeshifter or whatever doesn't default to a god, son of god, or whatever. But if you want to believe something different, have at it. Just maybe lighten up on the psychotropics.
I will double down on the psychotropics.
The Gospel mentions that after death the disciples "couldn't recognize Jesus." What does this mean? Well, simple. If you know how to interpret text you realize this point. While confined to a physical body, even though Jesus can do cool stuff like heal, exorcise, and walk on water, there are certain things he can't do.
But after his death? Able to eat and drink but also able to pass through walls and change form.
I think you missed the point. You hang with a guy who says he is the son of god. You believe him, follow him, willing to die for him. He is killed. 72 hours later, he comes back to life! Back from the frickin' dead, after 3 days. Don't you think you wouldn't wait 50 years to scribble at least something down. I'm pretty sure that if I was hangin' with sky daddy's kid I'd be writing down every word that came from his mouth and would have had a ton of questions. But no. It took half a century to scrounge up a pen and some papyrus and try and remember, word-for-word what the hippie cult leader said 5 decades ago? I mean, we're talking word-for-word here, right? Just seems implausible, 50+ years on and we supposedly have a word-for-word account. Doubtful. And sure, same applies for the Quran.
As well, how do we even know they were written when some claim they were written?
Carbon dating. Unfortunately, many archaeologists are Muslim. You can see where I'm headed with this.
But unfortunately for them (and for your "lack of evidence" theory), there's another way they date things. It's through comparative dating. For example if I have a theoretical prophet, and he is mentioned by a third party, we know that this first document must have an original copy that predated the one we found, even if the copy was lost (or burned). The fun thing about comparative evidence is you can't just write a book and make your religion appear older by name-dropping Moses. This first evidence has been dated to second evidence, which in turn is dated to other evidence. Without either actual dates or carbon dating this is how a real historian works.
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
Jesus had child followers. And his mission started only three years or so (around 28 AD-30AD). A child born in 23 AD might have been one of these children, and at about age five, most children have memories. It's entirely possible to live to age 87.
Cool, so now the gospels rest on the head of a 7 year old's recollection of stuff some 50 years later. I'll pass.
Up to you. I'd sooner trust the foggy memories of a 57 year old than the deliberate lies of someone else. Btw, I assume you remember the math you learned in 1st grade, right? So do many ppl in their 80s, provided senility hasn't set in.
Sure, but I don't remember what my teacher said word-for-word at 7 years old when they were telling how and why 1+1=2.
The teachings of Jesus were somewhat vague, much like that. They might have mixed up sequence, putting certain lessons on different days. The important parts were remembered because he probably repeated them. Also, it's very probable that before these were written in text, they were written as quick notes. Matthew writes down, "Blessed are the poor (spirit) - kingdom of God" then later he writes it all out with the other stuff he's seen. Maybe it gets lost in furniture for a few years. Or hidden since there are kinda sorta
Romans and Jews trying to kill you and destroy all record of Jesus? Maybe he just couldn't find the words until after certain things happened, like other Christians getting killed.
When I met Jesus in-person, it was 2011 to 2013. I was in a weird place. I moved to the city around that time. I was very busy. Then I moved home, and I was also somewhat busy between work and chores. I kept the file on record in a flash drive for years. Then I was blocked with nothing new to write about, and remembered some stuff that happened with regards to a dream, and tied the dream to an autobiography to make a sorta "semi-fiction." This is 11 years later from the event, and some of the stuff I wrote about was from my childhood to my teens, nearly 40 years later, in order to lead up to that event and give it context. Yes, memories from long ago can be written about. The #MeToo women in some cases mentioned rape that happened years ago. We humans participate in history, and life happens. We get to doing things like finding and training converts, raising family, or other things. Sometimes we just forget and something reminds us.
Not exactly. You just saying something is, well, not proof. That's just the way it goes. You somehow narcissitically believe that your every thought is gospel when it's really just your thought. That's not how proof works, not how evidence works, and I believe you know that and really don't need others to tell you that, but for some reason, you need to be reminded.
I will be sure to remind you of that, the next time you quote flat Earth stuff, talking about how this person said the Earth is round so it must be so, because they are an expert.
Nope, experimentation and observation will do. I've flown on planes. Long hauls, they follow great circle routes and the maps, distances check out. My wife has sailed across the pacific and back, following GPS and great circle paths as the shortest distance. And I have maps predicated on a globe that actually work. You don't even have a map, nada. I don't even need experts. But I do believe that some people, a lot actually, know more than I do. Something you feel you are immune to.
Right. So my actual experiences (climbing mountains, looking at the ocean) they don't count for anything, but you get to accuse me of narcissism while only your faulty observations count. I see.
I've flown on planes too. Also long 14 hour rides. In particular, I remember a flight to China that made no sense when I looked at either the conventional square map or the globe-like maps.
We went north. Virginia to Seattle, Seattle to China via north route, crossing Russia. What now? Earth is round, right? I assume they've got plenty of fuel, why aren't they flying over oceans? Satellites should be above the ocean for guidance, if they have fuel, they should be stopping in Hawaii to refuel, then continuing west. It doesn't make any sense on this map.
Make perfect sense on this one, though.
Every time I tell you what I personally have seen or heard, you move the goalposts and apply "No True Scotsman" (e.g. "yes but this isn't
real proof") to what I've just claimed. What, because I have no credentials? Because I don't have a fancy lab coat? You do realize these things are just props, right? That you can get education outside the classroom. That modern education is so bad these days that employers demand more education than was involved 50 years ago, and some degrees (like a master in women's studies) might even disqualify you from jobs? But yes, because you're soooo much better than me, you get to make the rules.
You cannot get your knowledge from secondhand or thirdhand sources.
But it's not me saying stuff. Not really. It's that Muhammad was caught in a lie. In his own words, he basically goofed up. Several times in fact. Almost like he was trying to deceive people. Or his "god" was. This is what these videos are about. Each of them exposes things that don't match up with what the "holy prophet" said. Some of them even show things where what the "prophet" said doesn't align with what he also said.
https://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/ashraf.html
https://carm.org/islam/contradictions-in-the-quran/
Whether in a forum or a court of law, more powerful than any evidence presented is the lies people are caught in.
Yes, and one could say the same about christian scripture.
I do not accept information from second or third hand sources. Does this mean I
never trust secondary sources?
I believe I showed at some point this week how I'm perfectly fine accepting the tide/moon guides.
The difference is that I actually went out when it said the moon was still up, and you know? I saw the moon.
Blindly trusting secondary sources based purely on hyped credentials is not remotely the same as a question and test approach. Even if I do see exactly what they told me I'd see, I don't always trust if unless it follows the model of three points below.
1. Verify it with your eyes (If someone says water can stick to a giant rotating ball, and you put a ball into the sink and spin it around, and drips off, I don't say "yes but the Earth is special circumstances")
2. Verify it with your mind (Is it logical? Is there an agenda?)
3. Check it against other possible theories (I'm not picky. Literally any explanation that doesn't involve what my eyes just disproved and doesn't feel illogical will do)
If it passes at least two of three, it is okay to accept something. If you can't see one yourself (e.g. dark side of moon or South Pole) without spending thousands or just can't, you are left entirely trusting a secondhand report. It has to be flawless with the other two, or I immediately doubt its credibility. And I won't suddenly agree no matter how many people insult, tease, or threaten me.
With moon and tide times, even though the science is fucked up, they managed to predict the times well. I trust the times that the moon is up, not the idea that the moon creates gravitational force on the water. I have never ever observed this happen. For the record, the tide chart doesn't even indicate this all that much.
So whether I'm wrong or not, if I've never observed it happen, and there are other things that could affect tide, I cannot accept claims from anyone that it affects tides. They could even be right, I still refuse to agree with them.
You can observe 2+2 = 4 or 4x3 =12. If 3 groups of four line up in infantry, you know there are 12 soldiers. Unobservable things like water clinging to the supposed underside of Earth simply does not work. We can verify otherwise.
Ditto for imaginary numbers or math theories like Hawking's cosmology. As someone pointed out, it requires division by zero.
https://futurism.com/black-holes-so-you-can-divide-by-zeroOh wait no, that was black holes. And no you can't. Black holes don't exist either.
As some really smart person once said, “black holes are where God (or the Flying Spaghetti monster, maybe) divided by zero.” It was probably meant to be a joke, but there's certainly a kernel of truth to it.
Yes, because this "really smart person" totally sounds really smart. If you have a basic math error, it's all also a science theory error.
FULL STOP
If you don't know math, it's better to preface your statements with that you didn't do any math. Because plenty of people try to do fake math. On the off chance your math is fake, having that exposed just makes you look like a fraud. None of us know anything. So making a bunch of gibberish hoping we won't see that in practice the formula doesn't work is a good way to ruin your credibility.
Apparently this is about economics. I've never learned more than a few symbols so I'm not sure what this is about, but the graph seems to imply he thinks there's a formula for economic depression or something. ...Bullshit. Economic fluctuations are choice-driven not pattern-driven. That is, if 17 people bid on a house, then the realtor bails, 17 people are theoretically left with 1/17 of a house. Similar to a market crash. People get sucked into a scam and all of them lose their money when the bubble bursts.
Turns out Michal Bednarek is an artist not a scientist.
https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/michal-bednarek?tab=artworkgalleries&page=2So this formula is probably complete crap.