A simple challenge for atheists

[FatAndFaithless]

At what point does "inane responses" evolve into "intentionally ignoring the point of any response"?

[JesusHChrist]

At what point does "inane responses" evolve into "intentionally ignoring the point of any response"?

About 20 pages ago.

[SteveII]

That does not make sense. If a fifth gospel was found, written by the apostle Andrew, an eyewitness to the events. Would The Gospel According to Andrew be a claim or evidence?

If it could be proved that Andrew was an eyewitness (unlike the writers if the Gospels), then that would count as evidence where it agreed with the Gospels and Acts.

If Joe the Jew did the same but did not state he was a Christian, would that somehow change from a claim to evidence?

Again, if it could be proved that Joe was an eyewitness, then that would count as slightly stronger evidence as it would be considered less biased.

What could prove that Joe was an eyewitness?

[Esquilax]

Just ask for references next time. A familiar set is called the Romans Road. You can read them all here: http://christianity.about.com/od/convers...nsroad.htm

Specifically Romans 10:9-10, and 13. There are many more.

If you have references then you should give them, not just expect that your assertions will automatically be believed.

Interestingly, that other theist has his own set of references for why he's right and you're wrong, all present in the bible too; he didn't just pluck the idea fully formed from his imagination. Again, the question becomes, who is right? We can toss around bible verses all day long, but considering the bible's notorious potential for interpretation and theodicy, that doesn't exactly get us anywhere. If the tens of thousands of denominations of christianity tell us one thing clearly, it's that the bible can be spun to mean anything you need it to mean. The real prize is actual authorial intent, which is something not a one of you can demonstrate since none of us know who the authors of the gospels were, and even if we did the only way their intent would be significant is if it conformed to an additional divine intent, which has also gone undemonstrated throughout the centuries.

[robvalue]

I just met God and he says you're wrong. I'm an eyewitness. In fact God is still here.

Any questions? I think that beats any book. Actual God.

My wife just confirmed it. That's two independent eye witness accounts. I can get more?

[Tonus]

What could prove that Joe was an eyewitness?

Now you're getting it.

[Simon Moon]

What could prove that Joe was an eyewitness?

Now you're getting it.

I have zero confidence that he does.

SteveII might be the number one "special pleader" we've ever had here.

Seriously. He's a master.

[Tonus]

I have zero confidence that he does.

Oh, I'm just being facetious. I don't expect him to suddenly come around. The only interest I take in these types is whether they're just having us on or if they're really this deeply-entrenched and don't actually realize what they're doing.

[Cheerful Charlie]

The only "eyewitnesses" to the resurrection are in the Bible. Your argument is the most perfectly circular perversion of logic and reasoning I've seen on this site.

Perhaps you are struggling with the term "Bible". There are five written documents (gospels+acts). I chose to believe these accounts because they are describing actual events--not because they claim any special consideration (like inspiration) -- because they don't.

Luke says Jesus arose to heaven on the same day he left the tomb. Matthew says the apostles never saw him in Jerusalem, but met him in Galilee, 80 miles away, three days travel. No resurrection is noted. Mark, Acts and John have yet different tall tales. These cannot be factual, not from eyewitnesses.The infant narratives of Matthew and Luke are contradictory. The Gospels obviously have no truth in them, no more than the myths of Hercules or the tall tales of Appollianas of Tyanna.

[SteelCurtain]

Luke says Jesus arose to heaven on the same day he left the tomb. Matthew says the apostles never saw him in Jerusalem, but met him in Galilee, 80 miles away, three days travel. No resurrection is noted. Mark, Acts and John have yet different tall tales. These cannot be factual, not from eyewitnesses.The infant narratives of Matthew and Luke are contradictory. The Gospels obviously have no truth in them, no more than the myths of Hercules or the tall tales of Appollianas of Tyanna.

Woah woah woah.... slow your roll there Charlie! That's easily 320 pages down the line! We still have at least 100 pages of Steve asserting that Hearsay is evidence despite it having nothing to do with his original point before we get to what the "eyewitnesses" are actually saying and how they don't say the same thing and how that serves the reliability of the claims.