RE: Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?
September 11, 2017 at 5:23 pm
(This post was last modified: September 11, 2017 at 5:39 pm by Mister Agenda.)
SteveII Wrote:mh.brewer Wrote:bold mineWhat evidence would you expect to see from events that happened in the first century? Writings. The more the better. The more names we know the better. The more immediate effects these writings had the better. The more people that believed the events even before the writings the better (for example, Paul addresses the already existing churches throughout the Roman empire in the very first surviving writings).
Um...........what? How do you even measure this? By word count? By number of supposed authors? By amount of publication?
An argument for belief based on quantity alone? Really?
This might be one of the worst propositions you've put forward for your delusion.
So yes. Quantity of the only evidence we should expect to survive (writings) is an important factor.
The more unbiased outside corroboration, the better, particularly in a region and time noted for how much was preserved by historians of the time. All the testimony seems to come from believers, which is really odd, considering all the things they're claiming happened; if they really happened. If they didn't really happen, it's not odd at all: 'Chinese whispers' and bias easily account for uncorroborated fantastic stories recorded decades after the supposed events.
There's plenty of evidence that Christians existed in the Middle East thousands of years ago and evidence of what they believed. But what you want is evidence that what they believed about supernatural events was true, right? You'd want outside corroboration from people with no skin in the game for that, right? If you had Pliny the Elder complaining about the dead people wandering Jerusalem and the sky darkening for three hours along with rock-splitting earthquakes, that would be something. That was quite a day to only be noticed by the faithful, and outside coverage of it would be evidence that something remarkable, at least, was happening. But hardcore atheists are spared trying to explain it because there's no good reason to think it happened in the first place. It's embellishment and symbology; believing it actually happened despite no outsider recording it requires more mental gymnastics than dismissing it as such.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.