How do you deal with a religious family?

[genkaus]

I had a list that can be used for ANY witness. That's why one, uncorroborated, witness statement in court is not proof even if that witness is 100% certain of the facts he's remembering. But it is evidence.

To be clear, I gave my reasons why in my opinion they may not be credible. I don't know for certain, and other people are certainly entitled to make up their own minds.

Don't sell yourself short. Uncorroborated witness statements are used as evidence in court - it isn't always sufficient evidence, but it is still admissible. What you argued was that only those statements were uncorroborated, they were not eye-witnessed and are the result of hearsay - something which is inadmissible. Therefore, not evidence.

A valid hypothesis is synonymous with the term "valid theory".

No, its not.

The theory of Newtonian Mechanics is a valid theory, it's even useful we still use it today, however that doesn't make it "truth" or for that matter correct.

It is a valid theory because it has evidence supporting it.

For the resurrection? No, but there's credible evidence for other things.

But you didn't say those "other things" were a valid theory, you said that about resurrection.

The theory that the OT was invented "as a way to try to control society" is a valid theory, however it has little to no evidence. Just like say the theory that the Egyptian Pyramids were built by slaves is a valid theory, however the evidence for it is extremely weak and the evidence that they were built by workers is quite strong (they excavated some of their graves for some of the pyramids).

If these things don't have credible evidence supporting them, then they are not valid theories either.

Virtually everyone agrees that Jesus did exist, that he called disciples and that he died on the cross. Christians believe the nativity and the resurrection and that all of the events regarding him are accurate.

Even assuming you have some credible evidence supporting his existence, the Christian belief in nativity and resurrection would still not constitute a valid theory.

That's not 100% the case. A theory can be partially correct, for instance it could be correct that Jesus survived the resurrection somehow and this was kept secret.

You mean he survived the attempted execution, which means he never died and was thus never resurrected. That would definitely prove the resurrection claim 100% false.

That eventuality would mean that there was a resurrection of sorts, but not in the way the Bible describes it.

No, it'd mean that there was no resurrection of any sort and the bible got it wrong.

So there's not exactly evidence, let's say, that Jesus was reburied, or that his body was stolen or that he survived the crucifixion - those are the other possibilities and there's an absence of evidence for them. But just because there's an absence doesn't make those theories invalid, nor does it mean any are improbable.

Actually, it does. Having no evidence means they are not valid theories.

I'd simply say that there's certainly not convincing evidence given that the resurrection is both: a. an historical event AND b. a supernatural event.

Without any actual evidence of its occurrence, you cannot consider it a historical event.

Nonsense, that debate would mean that every single uncorroborated witness statement made in court is untrustworthy. It's simply a statement of fact that a. the witnesses did not directly relate their testimony and b. there's no way of knowing the quality of the testimony.

Every single uncorroborated, non-eye-witnessed, hearsay testimony is untrustworthy - which is why they are not allowed in courts.

I don't think most Christians want to impose their beliefs upon others.

So when can we expect prostitution to be legal?

But I don't think saying that to an ordinary Christian is a good argument, I think it would be better to say you recognise they don't want to impose their beliefs upon others and that since they would agree their beliefs whether real or unreal are based on faith and not provable facts there's no point in them trying to prove their case to you. You could also say that you agree that freedom of religion and beliefs is a valuable freedom - I think nearly all Christians would agree with that statement.

I don't talk to those Christians at all. The ones I do talk to generally feel that their beliefs should influence government policy.