A simple challenge for atheists

[Esquilax]

@Esquilax

A trial for a murder is certainly serious enough to warrant "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of evidence. A liability trial for slipping on the ice warrants a "preponderance of the evidence" level. Judging whether it is likely that a historical event is "preponderance of the evidence".

So, a trial for murder is serious enough to use realistic standards of evidence, but for some reason identifying the architect of all that was and will ever be, upon which our eternity is supposed to rest, somehow isn't more serious? Why? Because it's convenient for your position?

Besides, you haven't gotten anywhere near a preponderance of the evidence, anyway. A bunch of philosophical arguments don't get you to a historical event, neither does the repeated assertion you make that the bible must be true because you believe the bible. I see you haven't addressed the very real problems of circular reasoning you're engaged in, which is troubling because that was actually the biggest issue with your entire argument. You just keep overstressing your case, calling it a preponderance of evidence, as though merely repeating that what you have is compelling will make it so.

But what I find particularly interesting is that what you've essentially said is that, if we were going to be serious and examine the evidence with incredible care and deliberation, your evidence would not be convincing. For some reason you then ask us to relax our standards and not address the evidence from a place of seriousness and consideration, as though somehow that makes the evidence better, rather than just our examination of it worse? It's a very telling response, really.

To say that the evidence of the early adopters belief can be applied to any religion is true. You would have to then go through each religion and see the differences--asking questions about the actual event believed to have happened, context, numbers, results, does it contradict reality, and can it be weaved into a coherent worldview.

Does it bother you that so many times, you'll say a thing, and then someone else will point out that what you say goes equally for every other religion, and then you respond with "yeah, but then you gotta go and investigate each of those religious claims for accuracy," which just means that what you said, in isolation, is not an argument at all, because you've just had to add in the corollary that your argument only properly applies to true religions, when the truth of the religion is what you're trying to demonstrate with the argument in the first place? Because if I had to add a little "but only if it's true," footnote to the majority of my arguments, in a conversation about whether what we're talking about is true or not, that'd bother me a whole lot.

Also, "does it contradict reality"? You mean... the way a resurrection does?

Oh, right: if the resurrection happened, it doesn't contradict reality. So we're back to circular reasoning and presuppositions, then.