A simple challenge for atheists

[FatAndFaithless]

That's the whole fucking point, Steve-o. The only refutation you can present to islam is "Well I just believe that Jesus was divine, so obviously Islam is false."

You can't just say "I believe Y" and present it as evidence for why X is false.

No you misstate my premise. I believe Y because of Z set of evidence. This evidence is not compatible with X so therefore I don't believe X because of Z set of evidence.

Your "Z" set isn't evidence, the point about which my above post laments. I'll keep using this muslim example, because it so easily demonstrates what you seem intent on ignoring.

If a muslim replied with his own "Z" set of evidence, his koran and the surrounding historical figures/writings/events/miracles, how on earth could you refute him?

You'd just be stuck repeating "I believe my Bible's claims, therefore it's evidence for Chrsitianity", and he'd be stuck repeating "I believe my Koran's claims, therefore it's evidence for Islam."


For your God's sake, you can't be this thick.

[SteveII]

4 gospels, acts, the letters of John, Paul, Peter and James. The fact is quite clear the first Christians--the ones who were present--believed these events happened (often not in their personal best interest) is additional evidence. Prophecies also exist to support the context and claims.

Again, you might not think highly of the evidence, but you cannot say there is none.

Those are not eyewitness accounts, they are hearsay (at best). Hearsay is not evidence. Try again.

There are no non-religious accounts of the alleged events. This absence of evidence that one would expect to be there is pretty damning.

Um, hearsay is certainly evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence. Would the letters of John, Peter and James by hearsay? You also need a reasonably explanation why the first Christians acted on the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

[FatAndFaithless]

Um, hearsay is certainly evidence.

Fuck no, it isn't.

[KevinM1]

If your evidence for the resurrection of Christ consists solely of 2nd and 3rd hand accounts from Iron Age savages who have a vested interest in making him appear divine, you really have no evidence at all.

[Norman Humann]

Um, hearsay is certainly evidence.

How exactly?

[IATIA]

Um, hearsay is certainly evidence.

Um ... It certainly is not. The reason being is pronounced in the game of 'telephone' or 'chinese whispers'.

[JesusHChrist]

Um, hearsay is certainly evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence. Would the letters of John, Peter and James by hearsay? You also need a reasonably explanation why the first Christians acted on the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

I had a guy tell me (first hand account!) he was abducted by aliens, anally probed (he sorta dug it), they fed him eggs Benedict and sent him on his way with $100 for his troubles. To this day, they still exchange birthday presents. That is hearsay. It doesn't help the case to say, 500 guys were abducted by aliens....500*0 is still 0.

Is hearsay admitted in court? Is eye witness testimony better than physical evidence? Nope and nope. Physical trumps eye witness, every time. Why is that Steve? Think about it.

You need a reasonable explanation for why the first Muslims believed Mohamed received revelation from Allah and acted on that belief.

Your argument is exactly the same.

[KevinM1]

Those are not eyewitness accounts, they are hearsay (at best). Hearsay is not evidence. Try again.

There are no non-religious accounts of the alleged events. This absence of evidence that one would expect to be there is pretty damning.

Um, hearsay is certainly evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence. Would the letters of John, Peter and James by hearsay? You also need a reasonably explanation why the first Christians acted on the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

Reasonable explanation: people are stupid. I mean, shit, here in the 21st century, with all of the knowledge we've attained as a species, there are people who fall for cults all the time. Scientology exists.

And, no, hearsay is not evidence. Never was, never will be. It's gossip, nothing more.

And you're right: an absence of evidence is not evidence itself. But an absence of evidence is an absence of evidence. You can't claim hearsay as evidence.

[SteveII]

No you misstate my premise. I believe Y because of Z set of evidence. This evidence is not compatible with X so therefore I don't believe X because of Z set of evidence.

Your "Z" set isn't evidence, the point about which my above post laments. I'll keep using this muslim example, because it so easily demonstrates what you seem intent on ignoring.

If a muslim replied with his own "Z" set of evidence, his koran and the surrounding historical figures/writings/events/miracles, how on earth could you refute him?

You'd just be stuck repeating "I believe my Bible's claims, therefore it's evidence for Chrsitianity", and he'd be stuck repeating "I believe my Koran's claims, therefore it's evidence for Islam."

For your God's sake, you can't be this thick.

You don't get to redefine the word evidence. What you mean is proof. That is not the same thing.

If you are asking me to refute some specific evidence that Islam has that Christianity is wrong, that would be relevant--please be specific.

[FatAndFaithless]

Your "Z" set isn't evidence, the point about which my above post laments. I'll keep using this muslim example, because it so easily demonstrates what you seem intent on ignoring.

If a muslim replied with his own "Z" set of evidence, his koran and the surrounding historical figures/writings/events/miracles, how on earth could you refute him?

You'd just be stuck repeating "I believe my Bible's claims, therefore it's evidence for Chrsitianity", and he'd be stuck repeating "I believe my Koran's claims, therefore it's evidence for Islam."

For your God's sake, you can't be this thick.

You don't get to redefine the word evidence. What you mean is proof. That is not the same thing.

If you are asking me to refute some specific evidence that Islam has that Christianity is wrong, that would be relevant--please be specific.

No, you unbelievable idiot, I'm not redefining anything.

I'm asking you to take one moment and imagine a situation in which a Muslim comes to you with his "evidence" that Islam is true, and uses the exact same reasoning and justifications that you have been using, just with the muslim versions of all your claims of "evidence".