We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response

[Silver]

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Oh, my fucking goddess, you are an idiot of the highest proportions.

There is no evidence that plenty of things created by the human imagination do not exist, yet logic has dictated after a time of human evolution that those things must not exist and are, in fact, merely the product of man's over active imagination.

Religion is nothing more than the imagination at work, an imagination creating an answer for one who is uncomfortable with having no readily available answer. This fact can be seen in how what was once religion is now known as myth. Christianity is merely dragging its feet because it wants to be a big baby about it all instead of finally becoming an adult and realizing that it was wrong.

[Aractus]

After sunset on Saturday, it would have been possible to go to the tomb since the Sabbath was over. However, it was after sunset...it would have been dark. Still possible, I suppose...but the gospels say that the women waited until daylight on Sunday morning since they had much work to do in annointing his body with spices, etc.

Passover takes place during the full-moon Randy, it wouldn't have been that dark at all at night.

Further, you still run smack into the problems of maintaining a conspiracy and you cannot account for the conversion of Paul and James who would have been more likely than not to believe a theft rather than a resurrection.

Well we don't know how wealthy Jesus's family was. Jesus lead a modest life when he was preaching - however that tells us nothing about his family's potential wealth. He was of David's lineage and Joseph was a builder in a location that at the time was experiencing growth - there would have been plenty of work, he would have been well paid. Assuming that James, Joseph (jr), Simeon, and Judas were also builders the family could be very well off.

The wealthy man was JoA, not Jesus. He hadn't worked in years, and before that, he was a common day laborer (not technically a carpenter). Joseph had died years before, and Jesus was an only child. This was not a wealthy family.

The fact that Jesus has detailed knowledge of the scripture and has studied it suggests that he was taught and mentored by a Rabbi, and that was not cheap. The fact that the family could afford this tuition for Jesus also suggests they were quite well off.

Or that Jesus was God and knew the scriptures because He inspired them to begin with.  

I can certainly account for the conversion of Paul. By his own account in Galatians he never sees Jesus on the road to Damascus - he simply "has a revelation".

That's a different account to Acts 9. The author of Acts 9 (either Luke or an associate of Luke) did not have first-hand knowledge of it; the first-person narrative in Acts begins in chapter 13, therefore Acts 9 is hearsay.

And the Bible is silent on how James gets converted. For all we know he's also a secret follower of Jesus before Jesus dies.

The wealthy man was JoA, not Jesus. He hadn't worked in years, and before that, he was a common day laborer (not technically a carpenter). Joseph had died years before, and Jesus was an only child. This was not a wealthy family.

Or that Jesus was God and knew the scriptures because He inspired them to begin with.  

Jesus was not an "only child" Randy. That's just some stupid made up RCC doctrine. His brothers are mentioned by name, and Mark and Matthew both say he also had sisters.

You also can't back-up your claim that labourers were poorly paid, can you? Or that that Joseph wasn't really a carpenter, or that Joseph had died before Jesus, can you?

[Homeless Nutter]

Randy still thinks that if he argues against enough fringe theories and plain old straw-men, we will somehow forget, that his god doesn't exist. Good luck with that. Even if you managed to undermine every mythical Jebus theory, or even if you proved existence of an empty tomb - you'd still be nowhere closer to proving resurrection, or divinity of Jebus - or indeed existence of any god in the first place.

All this is just busy-work, to keep yourself from reflecting upon the fact that you're a grown-ass man, who not only believes in fairy-tales, but also has invested way more time and energy in rationalizing those beliefs, than even the vast majority of religious people would consider reasonable.

Way to waste your life, Carson. You could have learned something useful by now, instead of being your imaginary friend's bottom-b**ch.

[Iroscato]

There are sources that claim Abraham Lincoln was the President of the USA from 1861 to 1865 until his assassination at the Ford Theatre. These are generally regarded as accurate and trustworthy.

There are other sources claiming that he was a vampire hunter. These are decidedly less well-regarded.

[abaris]

There are sources that claim Abraham Lincoln was the President of the USA from 1861 to 1865 until his assassination at the Ford Theatre. These are generally regarded as accurate and trustworthy.

There are other sources claiming that he was a vampire hunter. These are decidedly less well-regarded.

And here I was thinking it was the other way round. There's no vampire infestation in Washington. So, obviously it's true that Abraham Lincoln got rid of them.

[ApeNotKillApe]

[Esquilax]

Regarding this whole "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," bit, it might be comforting for those who want to hold beliefs for which there is an absence of evidence, but, well... an absence of evidence is exactly what you would expect to find for a claim that is not true. So at best, the claim for which you're wheeling out that canard to defend is indistinguishable from an untrue thing; still not something you could be justified in accepting as true. Honestly, it doesn't go as far as you need it to in defending your unevidenced assertions, and one can't help but suspect that if you actually had anything to bring to the table you wouldn't think it as cogent as you seem to.

Not to mention, if you're using that reasoning as a defense of your claim, then you're shifting the burden of proof by requiring that others provide evidence against an assertion that you've just acknowledged has no evidence for it before you'll let go of the claim. So it's either that "absence of evidence..." means nothing and does nothing to further your position, or it's actively a logical fallacy. You might as well just not say it at all, really.

[Withinner]

ATHEISTS YOUR STILL REBELLING AGAINST GOD AND YOU WILL NOT WIN!!!

"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."Revelation 21:8

[KevinM1]

I love that bible quote because it implies I can become a sorcerer, which would be bitchin'.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Actual footage from Hell.