[duffyd]

women who went to any kind of religious service more than once a week had a 33% lower chance than their secular peers of dying during the 16-year study-follow-up period. .......................  worshippers were 55% less likely to die during the up to 18-year follow-up period than people who didn’t frequent the temple, church or mosque.

So it's nothing to do with Jesus, then. Or even monotheism. Indeed if you include Buddhism, any deities at all. Apologies for applying the scientific method.

apples to oranges
when was the n.t. penned?

[Colin2B]

It is a shame you are unable to appreciate the significance of the information. 

I fully appreciate the significance of the information and the conviction of those who give their testimony. I respect their beliefs and would defend their right to hold those views (as long as it doesn’t lead them into sin), however, nothing you have posted amounts to scientific evidence.
Many of your posts also bear poor witness to Jesus’s message.

I will continue as I have.

If you continue as you are, you will be preaching which is against the forum rules.
Try to concentrate on scientific evidence rather than quoting testimony.

[duffyd]

Every man has his price.

Prove that is true.

[duffyd]

It is a shame you are unable to appreciate the significance of the information. 

I fully appreciate the significance of the information and the conviction of those who give their testimony. I respect their beliefs and would defend their right to hold those views (as long as it doesn’t lead them into sin), however, nothing you have posted amounts to scientific evidence.
Many of your posts also bear poor witness to Jesus’s message.

I will continue as I have.

If you continue as you are, you will be preaching which is against the forum rules.
Try to concentrate on scientific evidence rather than quoting testimony.

 Harassing others isn't showing respect as demanded in the rules. The information I am sharing is scientific. If I don't respond to you, don't hope that I will. 

[duffyd]

HE's my DAD, the ONE I longed for all my life and gave up hope I'd fine.

This really belongs in the "God" thread, but it's the key to monotheistic faith.

Most people spend their childhood in an environment where, whatever happens during the day, a big man with a beard (or at least a 5 o'clock shadow) arrives in the evening and dishes out justice, forgiveness, pizza, etc. Some of us grow up and assume all the responsibilities of a dad (or mum), including the liability for failure. Others, who lack the guts to be a proper adult, get on their knees and hope that there's another big man with a beard who will put things right in this life or the next, if you ask nicely. And some make a living by embellishing and selling that ridiculous idea, for which there is no actual evidence.

What is your point? When was the N.T. penned? You never answered correctly. You changed your answer but that too was way off as I showed you.

[Colin2B]

Harassing others isn't showing respect as demanded in the rules. The information I am sharing is scientific. If I don't respond to you, don't hope that I will.

It is not harassment to request that you abide by the rules.

The information you are sharing is not scientific.

A decision not to respond is entirely yours, but don't expect any bending of the rules.

[alancalverd]

Every man has his price.

Prove that is true.

I quoted mine, the same as Marcelo Gleiser whom you quoted as an example, and BC, with whom I often enjoy a little light disagreement. Three random scientists all give the same figure, so it's a good working hypothesis.
The motto is good enough for the President of the USA, who applies it routinely to women he has abused - indeed it is a traditional Presidential motto. 
So how much would you demand to utter a white lie that comforts many and offends nobody?

[alancalverd]

What is your point? When was the N.T. penned? You never answered correctly.

First point was obviously to explain why some people like the idea of a god. But that isn't relevant to this thread anyway.

My copy of the NT is part of the Revised Standard Version, an English translation of the Bible published in 1952 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches. This translation itself is a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901, and was intended to be a readable and literally accurate modern English translation. I have read passages from the later New English Bible but the language is too "wet" for my taste.

I've also quoted the Council of Nicea, which was convened in AD325 and selected the texts that form pretty well all the later editions.

Which date do you dispute? Are you accusing the National Council of Churches  and/or the emperor Constantine of lying on their title page?

[Colin2B]

Is an epidemiological study accepted as proof?

As Alan says, it doesn’t prove cause

One that compares people with experiences of God and the supernatural with those in similar circumstances but do not believe in God.

This would be a difficult study to design, but it is closer to the subject of this topic.
When you say God, I assume you mean Christian, biblical god. How would you design the experiment?

A study that looks at events that have seemingly have no rational physical explanation, and do studies to determine whether these give plausibility to the existence of God.

you say ‘seemingly’, I might say ‘currently’.
Just because you can’t currently find an explanation doesn’t mean the answer is god, there could be many explanations. Science is constantly probing areas we don’t have answers for and finding those answers.

I just think that God, at this time, in not prepared to be tested and proved.

So why are we bothering to try and design an experiment? You are saying they will all fail. This is part of what Alan calls the moving goalposts, a kind of get out of gaol card.

A period of about five years should do it. It life does not change very much, then I guess I have to accept that I was mistaken about the information given to me.

This whole hypothesis of yours won’t count as a valid experiment. You would have needed to write down the information you think was given to you well before the event occurred, have it notarised, placed in independent keeping.

That will still not change my belief that the supernatural exists. I have had too many experiences indicating the existence of the supernatural.

You might be able to convince yourself, but it is unlikely others will believe you.

Currently your ‘information’ regarding a pandemic could have been a good guess. Far Eastern countries (who do not generally believe in the Christian god) have been stockpiling PPE for such an event, the UK held a pandemic simulation exercise in 2016, and at least one fictional account of a pandemic mentions Wuhan. However, your ‘information’ is revealed after the event, so of little value in a scientific study, other than the fact that at first sight others have given pre event information.
Also, your idea of reduced immunity doesn’t seem to hold water.

To be honest, if this virus is targeted at reducing the population significantly it is pretty poor at doing so. Rather than targeting women of childbearing age, it disproportionately kills elderly males and those of ‘ethnic minorities’. Somewhere a bible bashing, white suprematist, pension fund manager is down on his/her knees thanking god for answered prayer.

Seriously, I don’t think these threads are going anywhere scientific. They are being hijacked by @duffyd who has a very poor understanding of logic, verbal reasoning, and scientific evidence. He’s currently doing the equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and going “naw, naw, naw”, plus some very childish comments. Not good witness at all.

[alancalverd]

Seriously, I don’t think these threads are going anywhere scientific.

True, but it's more fun than sitting at home waiting for death, and less risky than going out and inviting death.

[Bored chemist]

Why are you unable to understand that there is all the difference in the world between "someone said something"  and proof that the something is true?

It is a shame you are unable to appreciate the significance of the information. 

You are the one failing to understand the (lack of)  significance.
A person saying something is not actually significant.

[Bored chemist]

apples to oranges

Thanks for pointing out that you know that you are talking about stuff that's not what you said it was.

Now please answer my question.

Why bear false witness about what the science says?

[jeffreyH]

HE's my DAD, the ONE I longed for all my life and gave up hope I'd fine.

This really belongs in the "God" thread, but it's the key to monotheistic faith.

Most people spend their childhood in an environment where, whatever happens during the day, a big man with a beard (or at least a 5 o'clock shadow) arrives in the evening and dishes out justice, forgiveness, pizza, etc. Some of us grow up and assume all the responsibilities of a dad (or mum), including the liability for failure. Others, who lack the guts to be a proper adult, get on their knees and hope that there's another big man with a beard who will put things right in this life or the next, if you ask nicely. And some make a living by embellishing and selling that ridiculous idea, for which there is no actual evidence.

What is your point? When was the N.T. penned? You never answered correctly. You changed your answer but that too was way off as I showed you.

You didn't answer who wrote the Pentateuch so that makes you a hypocrite.

[Bored chemist]

You didn't answer who wrote the Pentateuch so that makes you a hypocrite.

True, but on that point, it's probably quicker to list the things he did answer.
It's as if he doesn't think the rules apply to him.
Not the rules of the forum, not the rules of decent debate; not even the rules of  logic.

He's probably going to ignore this and say something rude.

[duffyd]

Every man has his price.

Prove that is true.

I quoted mine, the same as Marcelo Gleiser whom you quoted as an example, and BC, with whom I often enjoy a little light disagreement. Three random scientists all give the same figure, so it's a good working hypothesis.
The motto is good enough for the President of the USA, who applies it routinely to women he has abused - indeed it is a traditional Presidential motto. 
So how much would you demand to utter a white lie that comforts many and offends nobody?

It may be a good working hypothesis, but you didn't prove it is true.

[duffyd]

What is your point? When was the N.T. penned? You never answered correctly.

First point was obviously to explain why some people like the idea of a god. But that isn't relevant to this thread anyway.

My copy of the NT is part of the Revised Standard Version, an English translation of the Bible published in 1952 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches. This translation itself is a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901, and was intended to be a readable and literally accurate modern English translation. I have read passages from the later New English Bible but the language is too "wet" for my taste.

I've also quoted the Council of Nicea, which was convened in AD325 and selected the texts that form pretty well all the later editions.

Which date do you dispute? Are you accusing the National Council of Churches  and/or the emperor Constantine of lying on their title page?

You bet. Would you dispute Ehrman? I quoted scholars for you who place the writing of the N.T. hundreds of years earlier.

[alancalverd]

Please answer the question: how much would you charge to utter a white lie?

Unless your friend Ehrman actually wrote the New Testament, I'm inclined to believe the guys who signed and dated it.

[duffyd]

Please answer the question: how much would you charge to utter a white lie?

Unless your friend Ehrman actually wrote the New Testament, I'm inclined to believe the guys who signed and dated it.

What did they sign? A document which indicates that the signees wrote the N.T.? Can you prove that?

[duffyd]

What white lie?

[alancalverd]

Though I have no respect for the analytical intellect of Christians, they do seem to be a pretty canny bunch when it comes to money. Now I can't imagine Constantine, King James or the National Council of Churches paying their editors for simply saying they wrote something. Surely they had to actually deliver a product? And given the differences between, say, the KJV, RSV and NEB, it's pretty obvious that the dates bear some resemblance to the truth.