The Outsider Test Reppert Style, Another Confirmation Bias Sighting

Here is a minimal facts approach to testing faith. Just decide between two religious faiths at a time. Do it from within your own faith perspective as an outsider to the religion chosen for testing, where any evidence for the other religion is judged by different standards and rejected. Test your own religious faith differently, since you have no objective safeguards in place to minimize your own cognitive bias, which skews the results in favor of your own faith. Just compare two at a time this way, over and over. Don't bother yourself with the multifaceted number of religious faiths. Do it this way so you don't have to fully grasp the problem of religious diversity, nor do you have to account for it. Do it this way so you can sweep this massive problem under the rug.

Then when it comes to atheism, fail to take into consideration, or reject the fact that non-believers are non-believers. Which means you have been dealing with non-belief the whole time, only now you're dealing with wide atheists--people who disbelieve all religions--rather than narrow atheists--people who disbelieve all other religions but their own. Then you can fail to take notice that these additional arguments are accepted by other believers in support of their religious faiths, who subsequently reject evidential claims for your particular religion. In other words, even if miracles are on the boards there isn't any solid evidence for theists to accept your specific religious set of miracles. Completely ignore Michael Alter's Encyclopedic Book On the Resurrection of Jesus. Wide atheists agree with Alter for the same reasons he offers. When theists like Alter reject claims of the resurrection of Jesus he speaks for all non-believers. This is something Reppert wants desperately to sweep under the rug with his so-called test.

Another thing. make sure you also reject the overwhelming evidence for evolution, which if Reppert fully understood, would realize his Argument from Reason (AfR) is not based on science, but is scientifically illiterate, just as William Lane Craig's Kalam argument is not based on science, but equally scientifically illiterate.

As far as the supposed archaeological evidence for Christainity goes. ;-) We have a whole part of a book that looks at that claim in detail. This one: Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion.You're welcome!