John Loftus keep making really bad arguments that I have a hard time believing that he actually gets people to agree with his mistakes. I don't get it how anyone can find the following credible.
Here's the evidence. Are you ready? Christians have the argument from ignorance which is a known informal fallacy, that is, the as yet unexplainable mysteries of existence.
Often times Loftus appeals to his own ignorance about God and pretend that it is true that Christians believe the unreasonable. For example Loftus just wrote the following a couple of days ago:
How dare I question the reasonableness of revealing himself in the pre-scientific past such that I must accept what ancient people claimed to have seen in a remote part of the world, or be condemned to hell if I don't? How dare I disbelieve because of the so-called mysteries of an eternal three-in-one God, who became incarnate, and who died for my sins, even though none of these doctrines make any rational sense at all. link
Why not consider that Christianity is the part of this that isn't unreasonable?
Then you have private subjective anecdotal religious experiences, something every believer claims to have, which basically nullifies that subjective private evidence.
Private subjective experiences are not enough. I don't know anyone who has pledge their lives to Jesus to have done so solely based on that. That's not saying that the born-again experience is personal. It is. But it also results in a transformed life. You are not the same person. Your desires are not the same. Your personal testimony about what God does to you and through you is your ultimate apologetic and I'd put it up against any other religious experience. They don't compare.
Then you have historical evidence from the ancient pre-scientific superstitious past. Historical evidence is paltry evidence indeed, especially when it comes to the ancient superstitious past. Am I missing anything?
Interesting rant. Where's the beef? So there is no way that people in ancient times can reliably tell any historical truth? It's all superstition? Really? I don't believe that. Why should anyone believe that? Far from a given. Yup, lots missing here.
Christians basically got nothing, nothing substantial that is. Not in comparison to science. All Christians do is attack science at this point which is a mark of a deluded person. Who in their right mind would not see this as it is? There is no parity between the evidence to believe and the evidence that causes me to disbelieve at all.
Yes, let's look at what science offers in terms of evidence. Science cannot and does not prove the existence of a relationship. Christianity - at it's core - is a relationship with God. That is what being a Christian is about. Science cannot disprove evidence for my relationship with any person, why would you think that science can disprove my relationship with God? That's not saying that science is not useful. I would argue that the design and structure of the physical universe and time are more than enough to establish scientific evidence for God's existence. If you want to know more about that God's character, you need to get to know Him. That that is what relationship is about.
Debunking Christianity: Is There Any Evidence For Christianity At All? A Review.