Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Minimalist]

His religion even schismed early on, just like many others.

Yes, yes, yes, that's all interesting and all that, but the question on everyone's mind is....

What have the Romans ever done for us?

The aqueducts.

[IATIA]

Indoor plumbing.

[KevinM1]

110 pages, and we're still left with just a biblical claim of resurrection from people who may not have actually existed. Can it get to page 200?

[robvalue]

So we're still on the argument from ignorance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Please follow this link and try and understand it. That goes for anyone who thinks Randy is making any valid points here.

I don't know how many more times I can say this... please learn what logical fallacies are. You're making a fool of yourself, and continuing to act superior while repeating the same mistake over and over. This shit may confuse others with little grounding in logic, but not us.

This is like playing chess against someone who just picks up their queen on their first move, and just smashes it onto the opponent's king, declaring victory. In their mind, they have won and we can't possibly defend ourselves. To us, it's a child who refuses to learn the rules. Logic has rules. And they are not atheist rules, or theist rules.

If you don't follow the rules, you can "prove" anything.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

103 pages to realise what everyone else was saying on page 1.

I have presented evidence for all five facts. Have you provided historical evidence to refute even one of them?

I don't see facts, rather a set of beliefs and assertions.

Think you may need to learn the difference there buddy! And no, not me personally. Have you presented evidence to give anyone a reason not to waste their time? No? Well, there's your answer. I'm glad you feel as though you're acheiving something here. Perhaps if you could forward us to a theist who is capable of presenting a coherent evidenced argument for their deity instead please?

Teh lulz. That's why you're here aren't you?

[Minimalist]

So we're still on the argument from ignorance.

Not quite.  We're arguing with the ignorant.

[robvalue]

Indeed. The saddest thing is when it's willful ignorance. Clearly Randy has the intelligence and capacity to learn about logical fallacies. I'd be very surprised if that was not the case. But he simply refuses to. Or else he thinks they don't apply to him for some reason.

[Longhorn]

I'll just drop this right here.....

[robvalue]

I always suspected they were both gay. Now we have evidence. Why would anyone draw that cartoon if they weren't both gay? People can't just make stuff up that isn't true.

You can't prove they aren't both gay.

[pocaracas]

I'll try to make this easy...

We have evidence that a guy named Jesus who lived 2,000 ago claimed to be God.

You have evidence that a guy, let's call him Jesus, lived somewhat 2000 years ago, went against some part of the established religious leadership and got nailed.
You have no evidence for any claim of godhood.

And that He predicted that he would die and rise again.

No evidence for this either.
Just a story.

And that some people seemed to think that He pulled it off.

That's part of the same story.

Now, if that is true - the rising again part, that is - then it suggests that maybe He was who He claimed to be and that the rest of what He said might be important. Especially if He's, you know, God.

You are aware that, far before this guy we're agreeing to call Jesus came along, people already believed in the existence of gods?... and, in that particular region, the people believed in the existence of a single deity, but were well aware of other people who believed in pantheons... you are aware of this, right?

Could the belief in a particular god have spawned the story I mentioned above? The story you seem to be assuming is a depiction of reality... but is mostly manufactured.
You never said what bits of historicity Bart Ehrman claims can be extracted from the NT...

Not saying for sure...not committing to anything just yet...but it's probably worth looking into.

So, what I don't understand is indifference and willful ignorance.

What you don't understand is human psychology (which can be safely assumed to be roughly the same now as it was then)