My conversation with and Jen P. and James I. moderated by Benjamin H. on 10/10/11

Following is the second half of a conversation that finished up a couple of days after the first half started. Jen P is the (presumably) born-again who’s admitted that she believes in Satan and demons, and who since this conversation has directly admitted that she isn’t open-minded (after pleading that I be with her bullshit claims). James I is an admitted young Earth creationist (more on that later). My text is in italics. Theirs is in bold. My comments are [in brackets]. And comments following.

Anton Hill ‎@James You say “Then look for it…” in regards to evidence. It’s not my job to prove your claim. It’s yours. You’d have to prove “thousands of years” as, last I heard, the nearest Christian and secular estimate was just over 2,000 years for all books. As for “several continents”, if you include the MIddle East as different continents, I guess. But both of these are irrelevant in regards to claims made. I find it fascinating when believers claim fulfilled prophecy and then either attempt to explain away often very vague verses that, like tarot cards, could “mean” just about anything, or they ignore the fact that if Book 2 was written after Book 1, then there’s nothing stopping the Book 2 author from writing his book in such a way as to comply with what Book 1 claimed. If you have a prophecy which you can prove, not assert and insist, but prove has been fulfilled, and you can prove how, and I can go and verify your evidence through reproducible experiment, then by all means, please do so.

My video “evolution misconceptions|DEBUNKED” is live on #AtheistConnect!

Atheist Connect is here. The video is here, below, and under My Media A-G.

Thank you, #stevelikes2curse, for taking on #LeeStrobel’s #TheCaseforChrist in “An Atheist Reads The Case for Christ: Chapter 1”!

One of the hunks of bullshit Steve Shives takes on is the notion of the so-called eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life, ministry, and miracles.

“Apparently, biased testimony is okay, even when the account you’re reading is written by someone who was a follower of the subject of the account, who believes that that subject was a miracle worker…”

This is one of my favorite points Shives makes as, in almost all encounters I’ve had with the religious, they want to have it both ways. They claim in one hand that you should believe their supernatural claims because they have “facts” to support them. But then when you find reason or facts that at least cast doubt on these claims, if not outright disprove them, or you simply challenge these claims, that’s usually when they drag out that old, rusty trusty “faith.” Either the supernatural claims are true or they aren’t. If they are, there should be some way of objectively evaluating them that’s more effective than simply trusting a story about them. If there isn’t, then there simply is no reason to trust them until such a way is possible.

But this is simply something that many religious don’t ever get about objectively verifiable claims. They say that one should trust a claim if it seems trustworthy, comes from a trustworthy source, or the like. They say that the assumption of veracity should be first, then the attempt to disprove should come later. But this is the definition of confirmation bias. The only way veracity can be found is to doubt the claim first and attempt to falsify it through multiple, testable, reproducible means. And even if the claim stands up to that scrutiny, it should always be regarded as subject to new evidence.

My video “just|THE FAQS” is live on #AtheistConnect!

Atheist Connect is here. The video is here. It’s below and under My Media H-Z.

My video “my de-conversion|DEVELOPMENT DIARY 2″ is live!

In this entry, I have some good news and some not-so good news. And it’ll likely be a while before I have another update. Boo hoo. The diary entry is below and under My Media H-Z.