How do you deal with a religious family?

[Aractus]

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.

No it's not eye-witness evidence, but it's still evidence.

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

So? there's still such a thing as right or wrong "by association".

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

It constitutes a valid theory, there's no reason nor benefit to say it doesn't.

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.

No, it would depend on their context and use and understanding of the term. Let me give you an example from psychology - indigenous people (specifically I'm thinking of Australian Aborigines) grouped "danger", "fire" and "women" in the same category in their minds. That's a pretty foreign concept to us, especially if you don't know the context (that being that they believed the sun to represent a female goddess of sorts). But, personally I think it's more likely that one person thought he saw Jesus and then convinced others that they had shared that experience.

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

Again, that's not true. There's no direct evidence whatsoever that Jesus was reburied, but that is my theory and it is a valid theory. By your definition the only theory that fits the evidence is that Jesus was resurrected and all other theories would be invalid.

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

Again you're thinking way too narrowly. If you think more broadly the event could be real but not the details.

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

In courts, yes, but by historical standards they are useful.

So when can we expect prostitution to be legal?

Prostitution IS legal - where do you live?

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

And, which policies? Without context there's not a lot to go on, but I will say that ALL lobby groups undermine democracy. We had a proposal for traffic-light labelling on food, supported by the public, that was fought against from the food-industry lobby groups.

How about copyrights? Copyright was meant to last 50 years - now it lasts for the life of the "author" plus 75 years!! That's what lobbyists did, not what the public got for their own interests.