MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[His_Majesty]

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Evidence is subjective. Obviously, there is enough evidence to convince me...so what evidence YOU think is sufficient enough FOR you is entirely up to YOU...but as for me, I am very much convinced...about 99.9% convinced

Again, these are the rules we play by in every area of life outside your favorite religious beliefs. Otherwise, you would be compelled to consider countless possibilities that you have no time to consider.

I agree...but I am convinced by the evidence that was presented to me, I can't speak for anyone else.

A man who hears voices or speaks to people who aren't there is considered to be crazy.

You don't know whether the man is hearing the voices or not, bruh. You can't rule out whether he is, and you can't rule out whether he isn't...you can assume he is crazy all you want, but you just don't know...so instead of just withholding judgement, you want to make unjustified assertions....since when is it ok to pass judgement when you are ignorant of the facts?

It's not required that we prove the voices aren't real unseen spirits or that there isn't an invisible bunny rabbit to put such a man away.

Yes it is required. Again, you don't know whether or not the man is hearing the voices. You don't know...so how can you call the man crazy if you don't know whether or not he is hearing the voices. Suppose the man is hearing the voices?? Is he crazy if he is actually hearing voices? No, he isn't. So you are fallaciously begging the question.

You are rushing to judgement without knowing all the facts.

It's called "the null hypothesis". X is assumed to not exist until proven otherwise.

Bullshit. The truth value or X' existence is independent of whether or not X' existence can be proven. The safe approach would be to just say "I don't know", or "maybe, maybe not"...but to take a stand either on the pro side or the con side is bullshit.

It is always within the bounds of rational skepticism to say "X doesn't exist" where there is no evidence for X. Those who believe in X are compelled to provide evidence for X's existence. Saying "Oh yeah, well prove X doesn't exist" is a classic shifting of the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is on anyone that is making the positive claim...if an atheist say "There is no God", that is a positive claim which requires proof...it is just as much as a positive claim for an atheist to say "There is no God" than it is for a believer to say "There is a God"...both are claims of knowledge, and both requires proof.

The safe approach would be to just simply says "I have no good reasons to believe in God, therefore, I don't believe in God"...or, "I have good reasons to believe in God, therefore, I believe in God".

Some atheists make positive claims and STILL maintain that they don't have to back up their positive claims with evidence, and it takes a person like me who has seen all the bullshit before to call them out on it.