How do you deal with a religious family?

[genkaus]

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

Inadmissible evidence - which is to say, not evidence at all.

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

Yes, and that's called a logical fallacy.

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

The reason being that it doesn't fit the criteria of a valid theory and saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

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).

Not really - hot chicks are dangerous.

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.

If you think that that guy was guilty of witness tampering then that's a very good reason NOT to believe his story.

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.

You can keep calling it valid - doesn't make it so. When you are ready to provide credible evidence for it, then we'll talk. And by my definition, the whole resurrection itself doesn't fit the evidence and is therefore an invalid theory.

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

The critical details must match - otherwise the event is not real.

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

Nope.

Prostitution IS legal.

Somewhere where people get arrested for prostitution.

And, which policies?

Minority rights. Womens' issues. Scientific research etc.

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.

And I'm against the one originating in religion.