Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[JesseB]

But that's not my point. My point is that there are a vast array of claims that are very falsifiable that are not scientific claims, despite Steve's adamant argument to the contrary.

(my bold)

I find it funny that @SteveII who seems to have no substantive understanding of what science is, or how it is properly applied, thinks he's qualified to tell everyone the difference between a "scientific" question and a "non-scientific" question. More so since he consistently attempts to use science (incorrectly) to back up his "non-scientific" claims. I mean for real it is so laughable it could be a Monty Python sketch.

Absolutely. If I thought he'd actually take the time, and read them with a truly open mind, I'd recommend some books to him. Considering the level of ignorance of science he display's in these threads, though, I don't think he's cracked a science text since high school and that only with great reluctance.

Kalam, Pascal's Wager, and all the other tripe the theist spew at us may sound good to them, and they may be good arguments to keep the faithful filling the coffers, but to anyone who has even a layman's understanding of science, they are really bad arguments.

I would even go so far as to say it is more a result in a fundamental lack of critical thinking skills developed when one learns about science and less about understanding the scientific methodologies or results themselves.

From what I can tell he thinks critical thinking is synonymous with scientism.