A simple challenge for atheists

[Norman Humann]

Your "Z" set isn't evidence, the point about which my above post laments. I'll keep using this muslim example, because it so easily demonstrates what you seem intent on ignoring.

If a muslim replied with his own "Z" set of evidence, his koran and the surrounding historical figures/writings/events/miracles, how on earth could you refute him?

You'd just be stuck repeating "I believe my Bible's claims, therefore it's evidence for Chrsitianity", and he'd be stuck repeating "I believe my Koran's claims, therefore it's evidence for Islam."

For your God's sake, you can't be this thick.

You don't get to redefine the word evidence. What you mean is proof. That is not the same thing.

If you are asking me to refute some specific evidence that Islam has that Christianity is wrong, that would be relevant--please be specific.

That's it. You can call me Miss Dictionary from now on.

ev·i·dence
noun \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\

: something which shows that something else exists or is true

: a visible sign of something

: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something

proof
noun \ˈprüf\

: something which shows that something else is true or correct

: an act or process of showing that something is true

mathematics : a test which shows that a calculation is correct


From Merriam-Webster.

[Foxaèr]

You also need a reasonably explanation why the first Christians acted on the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

To spread what they mistakenly perceived as the truth.

It is quite common for men to lie about what they have witnessed in order to further a personal agenda.

[SteveII]

Um, hearsay is certainly evidence.

Um ... It certainly is not. The reason being is pronounced in the game of 'telephone' or 'chinese whispers'.

It would have taken you 15 seconds to check. Yes it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

[SteelCurtain]

Um, hearsay is certainly evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence. Would the letters of John, Peter and James by hearsay? You also need a reasonably explanation why the first Christians acted on the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

Hearsay is the claim. It's the way we even have a clue about all of what you are claiming.

It's the claim. One thing cannot both be the claim and the evidence. It really is not that difficult to comprehend.

If I have a book that's 2200 years old and tells me that Amun Ra is the one and true god above all. That's the claim. I cannot also look at that book and claim it to be the evidence that Amun Ra is real and the one and true god. It is the claim. I need to look elsewhere for corroborative evidence to support that claim.

That is what your are missing.

[FatAndFaithless]

That's it, I'm tapped out. It's like talking to a brick wall covered in toddler doodles and shit from the pigeon fresh off the chessboard. I can literally feel my brain decaying as this guy goes on.

[SteveII]

No, you unbelievable idiot, I'm not redefining anything.

I'm asking you to take one moment and imagine a situation in which a Muslim comes to you with his "evidence" that Islam is true, and uses the exact same reasoning and justifications that you have been using, just with the muslim versions of all your claims of "evidence".

Your insist in a parallel when there is not. Just what do you think the Muslim version of my claims are? There is NO Muslim version of God incarnate rising from the dead. The Quran was written by a man supposedly inspired to do so and is for INSTRUCTION. There ARE NOT PARALLELS to the birth, life, teachings, death, and resurrection of God in Islam. Muslims don't need PROOF of extraordinary events because there aren't ANY that are foundation to their religion.

[SteelCurtain]

It would have taken you 15 seconds to check. Yes it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

All this proves is that you took the time to read the first two words, and that you rely on quibbling with the fact that you found a source that uses the idiom "Hearsay Evidence" without looking at what the actual definition is and how it relates to your point.

Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein." In court hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "Hearsay Evidence Rule") unless an exception to the Hearsay Rule applies.
...
For example, it would be acceptable to ask a witness what Susan told them about Tom in a defamation case against Susan because now the witness is asked about the opposing party's statement that constitutes a verbal act.

[SteveII]

Hearsay is the claim. It's the way we even have a clue about all of what you are claiming.

It's the claim. One thing cannot both be the claim and the evidence. It really is not that difficult to comprehend.

If I have a book that's 2200 years old and tells me that Amun Ra is the one and true god above all. That's the claim. I cannot also look at that book and claim it to be the evidence that Amun Ra is real and the one and true god. It is the claim. I need to look elsewhere for corroborative evidence to support that claim.

That is what your are missing.

The problem with that statement is that can be applied to eyewitness testimony too. So by your reasoning, eyewitness testimony would not be evidence.

[Esquilax]

Um, hearsay is certainly evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence.

I asked you this earlier in the thread, and you seem to have missed it, but if you were on trial with a life sentence possibly in your future, would you believe that justice had been carried out if you were convicted on the same basic concepts you've presented here? If the prosecution had just trundled out a series of people you'd never met to testify that they heard some guy say that you committed the crime, would you think that to be sufficient evidence to convict you? If the judge sentenced you to life on the basis that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," and that though the prosecution hadn't provided any evidence, neither had the defense conclusively proven such evidence didn't exist, would you feel that you had been given a fair sentence? Basically, would you think it reasonable to be convicted of a crime because you hadn't proved yourself innocent of it?

And if you wouldn't feel that any of that is reasonable, why do you expect that anyone else will find exactly the same kind of logic reasonable, when it's applied to less likely claims that we haven't even determined are possible?

I think that's a relevant thought experiment here, but it's also secondary to the real problem here, which is that what what you're presenting as evidence... isn't. It's the claim; you don't even get the idea that Jesus existed and was god anywhere else but the bible. The bible and its associated books and writings are the source of the claim you're trying to prove; do I really need to tell you why "this set of books is true, because the book says it's true!" is circular reasoning? Any other religion can say the same thing, you know, as all their holy books operate under the premise that they're non-fiction too. Once again, you've offered us something that any other religion can use to the same effect; surely you can see why that's ineffective?

You also need a reasonably explanation why the first Christians acted on the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

You need to explain why so many older religions sacrificed people to their gods, in the process acting under the belief that those gods were real, then. Hell, if you really want to use this kind of logic, you need to explain why every first group of religious practitioners, from every religion, acted on the belief that their god was real.

Seriously, every argument you make operates on special pleading, where your own claims are privileged based on ideas that the majority of other religions also use.

[SteveII]

It would have taken you 15 seconds to check. Yes it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

All this proves is that you took the time to read the first two words, and that you rely on quibbling with the fact that you found a source that uses the idiom "Hearsay Evidence" without looking at what the actual definition is and how it relates to your point.

Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein." In court hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "Hearsay Evidence Rule") unless an exception to the Hearsay Rule applies.
...
For example, it would be acceptable to ask a witness what Susan told them about Tom in a defamation case against Susan because now the witness is asked about the opposing party's statement that constitutes a verbal act.

You realize that it is not allowed in court because it cannot be cross examined. The fact that there are exceptions proves the point. Hearsay evidence is indeed evidence.