MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[His_Majesty]

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Evidence is subjective. Obviously, there is enough evidence to convince me...so what evidence YOU think is sufficient enough FOR you is entirely up to YOU...but as for me, I am very much convinced...about 99.9% convinced

Again, these are the rules we play by in every area of life outside your favorite religious beliefs. Otherwise, you would be compelled to consider countless possibilities that you have no time to consider.

I agree...but I am convinced by the evidence that was presented to me, I can't speak for anyone else.

A man who hears voices or speaks to people who aren't there is considered to be crazy.

You don't know whether the man is hearing the voices or not, bruh. You can't rule out whether he is, and you can't rule out whether he isn't...you can assume he is crazy all you want, but you just don't know...so instead of just withholding judgement, you want to make unjustified assertions....since when is it ok to pass judgement when you are ignorant of the facts?

It's not required that we prove the voices aren't real unseen spirits or that there isn't an invisible bunny rabbit to put such a man away.

Yes it is required. Again, you don't know whether or not the man is hearing the voices. You don't know...so how can you call the man crazy if you don't know whether or not he is hearing the voices. Suppose the man is hearing the voices?? Is he crazy if he is actually hearing voices? No, he isn't. So you are fallaciously begging the question.

You are rushing to judgement without knowing all the facts.

It's called "the null hypothesis". X is assumed to not exist until proven otherwise.

Bullshit. The truth value or X' existence is independent of whether or not X' existence can be proven. The safe approach would be to just say "I don't know", or "maybe, maybe not"...but to take a stand either on the pro side or the con side is bullshit.

It is always within the bounds of rational skepticism to say "X doesn't exist" where there is no evidence for X. Those who believe in X are compelled to provide evidence for X's existence. Saying "Oh yeah, well prove X doesn't exist" is a classic shifting of the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is on anyone that is making the positive claim...if an atheist say "There is no God", that is a positive claim which requires proof...it is just as much as a positive claim for an atheist to say "There is no God" than it is for a believer to say "There is a God"...both are claims of knowledge, and both requires proof.

The safe approach would be to just simply says "I have no good reasons to believe in God, therefore, I don't believe in God"...or, "I have good reasons to believe in God, therefore, I believe in God".

Some atheists make positive claims and STILL maintain that they don't have to back up their positive claims with evidence, and it takes a person like me who has seen all the bullshit before to call them out on it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, I will concede that you are an expert when it comes to bullshit.

[His_Majesty]

H_M is seriously positing a god that hides behind the Sun? Just because he can't think of a way to demonstrate that it exists outside his book and his head? Why are we still listening to this guy? He's about two steps away from ricky's territory at this point.

Bullshit. The point was if you've never been there, you don't know what resides there.

You can post all of the snarkly remarks you want but that doesn't change the fact that if you've never been to a location, or you are not CURRENTLY at a location, you don't know what the hell is going on there.

Trust me, I know your disbelief in God is so strong that you don't like the idea of God being ANYWHERE..I got it...but the fact of the matter is, you don't know. It would be nice to know everything, to be everywhere, but face it, you don't know everything, and you are not everywhere.

---

Hey, I have no problems admitting that the 2 billion Christians in this world could be wrong...but they again, they also could be right

If they agreed on every point, perhaps. There are three arguments we get from Christians pretty regularly. One is some version of "two billion people can't be wrong" and the other is some version of "but most of them aren't True Christians."

The third argument is some version of Pascal's Wager, which is particularly hilarious in light of the tens of thousands of different versions of Christianity alone. So no, they can't be right. There might not even be a scenario in which half of them are right. But all of them could definitely be wrong.

I will put it to you like this...all of them believe in Jesus Christ...and on that note, they could be all right. They don't have to agree on every little itsy bitsy detail...but they all got that part right.

[FatAndFaithless]

Confirmed: HM has purple fairies living in his closet.

[His_Majesty]

We should all eat shit! 800 trillion flies could be right!

I promise you I will start eating shit, right after you...I promise.

[Natachan]

The more I read the more I become convinced that H_M is trying to do something impossible. He seems to think that accepting that tree was a historical preacher Jesus means accepting a mythical god-man. In fact it isn't that a preacher like Jesus couldn't have existed, the problem is that too many existed. Even limiting it to people Pilate killed that's still too many (Pilate was a despot, as described by his contemporaries).

Then he tries the ridiculous plan of trying to argue the reliability of the gospels. And added to that when confronted he resorts to ad hominums and arguments that are lifted whole from other apologetics.

He is starting to bore. Even this pile of excrement has lost its lulz value.

[DeistPaladin]

By the way, HM, you may be interested in reviewing a debate I had with one Chi Pan over the topic of "Are the Gospels Based on a True Story?"

Chi Pan cut an ran from the debate before it was concluded. If you think you can handle the subject any better than he did, I'll happily have that debate the same topic with you if the moderators will allow.

Poor Chi Pan probably didn't realize this wasn't a debate about Jesus Myth vs. Historicity, even though I thought I made that clear. This was a debate about whether or not the Gospels are based on a "true story", meaning Jesus was more than just "some religious leader crucified by the Romans".

To be clear: I'm not a Jesus Myther. I'm a Jesus Mooter. As in "OK, some guy named Yeshua (common name) who was some sort of Messiah wannabe (one of many) who was crucified by Pilate (like many Jewish leaders were)? Fine. Get back to me when we can know anything about him."

If you're prepared to debate that topic and the mods will allow, let me know.

[robvalue]

I dunno, I don't even think he's serious. I'm doubting he's even a theist, this is all just a wind up. He's playing the real long game.

[DeistPaladin]

Even limiting it to people Pilate killed that's still too many (Pilate was a despot, as described by his contemporaries).

You have to know Pilate was brutal when even the Romans thought he was too rough on the Jews, a people that the Romans fought constantly against and finally sacked their temple and dispersed their population. When a governor is too brutal by Roman standards, you know he killed a lot of people.

[dyresand]

I dunno, I don't even think he's serious. I'm doubting he's even a theist, this is all just a wind up. He's playing the real long game.

Might be a poe