A simple challenge for atheists

[Tonus]

How does a miracle contradict reality??? If a miracle occurs and there is proof and that proof is observed, do you think reality would somehow be in jeopardy? What you meant is that it would contradict naturalism.

Well, if someone ever proves that a miracle has happened, I will adjust my point-of-view. Until then, they are at odds with reality.

[SteelCurtain]

Regarding hearsay evidence...

1. It is not a synonym for proof or a claim
2. It is evidence
3. If hearsay evidence exists of an event, there is evidence of that event.

If 10 people told me your house was burning down and I relayed that fact to you, you would rightly conclude there is evidence that your house is burning down. Although I did not prove anything, you would not be irrational to act on my statement and go home.

You can argue what might be better evidence, but you cannot claim there is no evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Reinforcement of the fact that you have no ability to think critically about your own sentiments.

If 10 people told you my house was burning down and you related that to me, what do you think I would do? Would I take your word on it and just buy a new house? Or would I go to my house and investigate? I am still taking it as hearsay. I am not basing my whole life on what those 10 people told you, which you told me.

Now, if 10 people told me to tell you that there is an invisible pink unicorn in my closet that died for your sins and that you must worship lest you suffer in pink unicorn bondage for eternity, is that the same thing? Do you require the same level of evidence for this claim as the fire claim? Why or why not?

[Crossless2.0]

Regarding hearsay evidence...

1. It is not a synonym for proof or a claim
2. It is evidence
3. If hearsay evidence exists of an event, there is evidence of that event.

If 10 people told me your house was burning down and I relayed that fact to you, you would rightly conclude there is evidence that your house is burning down. Although I did not prove anything, you would not be irrational to act on my statement and go home.

You can argue what might be better evidence, but you cannot claim there is no evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Fuckin' Christ!

I don't believe for a moment that you're so stupid that you can't see the difference between "Dude, x, y, and z all told me they saw your house burning. You'd better go home!" and "Did you hear about that God-man rabbi who came back from the dead and floated away into the sky? It's true because x, y, and z told me!"

Seriously, you can't be that fucking dumb. And that leads me to conclude that you are a willfully dishonest tool, a sophist, who will say or do anything to avoid facing up to how flimsy the foundations of your religious faith really are.

Grow up and start reading some good books for a change.

[JesusHChrist]

Regarding hearsay evidence...

1. It is not a synonym for proof or a claim
2. It is evidence
3. If hearsay evidence exists of an event, there is evidence of that event.

If 10 people told me your house was burning down and I relayed that fact to you, you would rightly conclude there is evidence that your house is burning down. Although I did not prove anything, you would not be irrational to act on my statement and go home.

Not quite. It's you *saying* 10 people told you a house is burning. Hey Steve! 10 people, just now, have told me your house is burning! Is your house, in fact burning? Or is it merely the *claim* the house is burning? See how that works?

You can argue what might be better evidence, but you cannot claim there is no evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Right. Your evidence is of the same quality as the evidence Mohamed was visited by an angel and flew hundreds of miles on a winged, magical horse-like thingy to Jerusalem and back in a single night, or that Joseph Smith used magic stones to translate magical golden plates into 16th century English, i.e., bullshit.

Why are you so gullible as pertains to ancient stories, and just one particular story? You're skeptical about Mohamed's tall tales, yet swallow Jesus and friend tall tales hook, line and sinker. Do you not see the parallels?

[Esquilax]

Steve, since you seem to honestly don't understand this "the thing you think is evidence is actually the claim," concept we keep talking about, here's what you're doing:



Surely you can see how that is problematic logic?

[Chas]

Those are not eyewitness accounts, they are hearsay (at best). Hearsay is not evidence. Try again.

There are no non-religious accounts of the alleged events. This absence of evidence that one would expect to be there is pretty damning.

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.

And how would you know that the first Christians - whoever they were - believed in a resurrection?
When and where did these first Christians exist? Before or after the Gospels were written, which is decades after the alleged events?
There was plenty of time for myth making.

[KevinM1]

Okay, fine, it's evidence. It's evidence that doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and is literally worthless.

Happy now?

Just for clarification, I don't actually hold hearsay to be evidence, but I feel that it's not an important thing to get hung up on in this case. There are plenty of other ways to show how belief in the resurrection is simply that - belief - and how it's faulty.

[Chas]

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

Try actually reading and comprehending that article. We'll wait.


Hearsay is excluded as evidence except under special circumstances which the Gospels don't meet.

[robvalue]

[JesusHChrist]

Hearsay is shitty evidence; eyewitness evidence isn't much better.

...But it would have happened sooner or later, Loftus says, given the increasing number of people convicted with eyewitness testimony who have been subsequently exonerated by DNA evidence. Some 75% of the wrongful convictions for rape and murder, including a number that led to people being scheduled for execution, were based on eyewitness testimony.

http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2014/1...ists-weigh

And this is in modern times, much less the ancient superstitious world where magic men were a dime a dozen.

The legal system in the United States makes juries responsible for assessing the credibility of witness testimony presented in a trial.[5] Research has shown that mock juries are often unable to distinguish between a false and accurate eyewitness testimony. "Jurors" often appear to correlate the confidence level of the witness with the accuracy of their testimony. An overview of this research by Laub and Bornstein shows this to be an inaccurate gauge of accuracy.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_...eliability

Steve - notice how the physical trumps eyewitness testimony and how unreliable eyewitness testimony is? All it takes is someone to speak with "confidence" and the average person will be convinced.