Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

I'd believe a great deal more of what Jenny had to say than you.  Mull it over.

Of course you would. Jenny is known to be an atheist, so when she becomes a believer, it will cause you to pause for a moment...before writing her off.

"No true atheist would buy all that nonsense. She was indoctrinated as a child and it came back to bite her."

[Randy Carson]

That's what this thread (and others) are all about.

Please pay attention.

Yet you have offered not one single shred of proof.

Not one.

I'm beginning to think you're an idiot.

You have not refuted one of the five facts presented in this thread.

I'm beginning to think you can't (and so are you).

[The Grand Nudger]

Sorry, no, it's simpler than all that.  You're a habitual liar.

If there were facts to refute in the OP, then perhaps someone would have refuted them by now...but since there -aren't- facts to refute in the OP...it seems strange to complain that no one has refuted what doesn't exist -to be refuted-.

LOL, fucking refute.....whats with that word anyway, its a favorite of christers, it seems.

[Spooky]

The Minimal Facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion

A lot of people during that time did.  There is no reason to believe >if< Jesus existed, that this would make the situation special at all.

2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them

People on drugs/alcohol possibly believe purple dragons steal their farts.  The unsubstantiated claims of what some ancient goat herders may or may not have believed is completely moot.

3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed.

Good for him?  This is barely a fact, and an irrelevant one at that.

4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.

See previous answer.

5. Jesus' tomb was found to be empty.

Cool.  So what?  Somebody could have stolen it, animals could have gotten to it, etc ad nauseum.  >If< Jesus existed, there is a myriad of logical reasons a body may not be found.  

Do you have a theory about what happened that accounts for all five?

If so, we need to give it careful consideration. Thanks.

Yep.  Sure do.

You have not refuted one of the five facts presented in this thread.

I'm beginning to think you can't (and so are you).

Short term memory.  Get some.

[Pizza]

Randy is so dishonest, that he rules in supernatural causes but doesn't refute rival supernatural explanations. Others in this thread have given naturalistic and supernaturalistic alternatives to his pet theory. He hasn't refuted them all, so by his own stupid rules fails.

[KevinM1]

Try again, slick.  Evidence is derived from the word 'evident'.  Evidence is only evidence if it is evident to others.  God tapping Jenny on the shoulder and saying "Hi" isn't evidence unless it's observed by someone else.  And, even then, that's only evidence of someone/thing interacting with her, not of your god.  That requires much more evidence, evidence which must eliminate other possibilities from being the most likely explanation.

As I said, if Jenny were to be taken up into heaven by Jesus for a three-hour tour, you would not believe anything she said upon her return.

You wouldn't read her book, and you wouldn't go to see the movie.

And that's supposed to be an indictment of myself and other atheists how?

Eyewitness testimony is the weakest form of evidence there is.  Not only do we forget things, get confused about things, and otherwise have faulty memories, we can 'remember' things that didn't actually happen:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/01/p...committed/

Do you begin to understand why we put zero stock into eyewitness testimony?  It's utterly unreliable.  It's why legal professionals use it to corroborate actual evidence rather than relying solely on it.  By itself, it just creates a narrative.  Narratives aren't proof of anything.

In other words, Jenny's hypothetical experience may indeed be valid, but unless she can produce actual evidence of it, evidence that can't be more easily explained by something else (Occam's Razor is a bitch, innit?), her claims of the divine are meaningless.

[Pizza]

As I said, if Jenny were to be taken up into heaven by Jesus for a three-hour tour, you would not believe anything she said upon her return.

You wouldn't read her book, and you wouldn't go to see the movie.

And that's supposed to be an indictment of myself and other atheists how?

Eyewitness testimony is the weakest form of evidence there is.  Not only do we forget things, get confused about things, and otherwise have faulty memories, we can 'remember' things that didn't actually happen:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/01/p...committed/

Do you begin to understand why we put zero stock into eyewitness testimony?  It's utterly unreliable.  It's why legal professionals use it to corroborate actual evidence rather than relying solely on it.  By itself, it just creates a narrative.  Narratives aren't proof of anything.

In other words, Jenny's hypothetical experience may indeed be valid, but unless she can produce actual evidence of it, evidence that can't be more easily explained by something else (Occam's Razor is a bitch, innit?), her claims of the divine are meaningless.

Y u no luv Jee-sus?

[Minimalist]

That's what this thread (and others) are all about.

Please pay attention.

Yet you have offered not one single shred of proof.

Not one.

I'm beginning to think you're an idiot.

I was convinced of that long ago.

[KevinM1]

And that's supposed to be an indictment of myself and other atheists how?

Eyewitness testimony is the weakest form of evidence there is.  Not only do we forget things, get confused about things, and otherwise have faulty memories, we can 'remember' things that didn't actually happen:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/01/p...committed/

Do you begin to understand why we put zero stock into eyewitness testimony?  It's utterly unreliable.  It's why legal professionals use it to corroborate actual evidence rather than relying solely on it.  By itself, it just creates a narrative.  Narratives aren't proof of anything.

In other words, Jenny's hypothetical experience may indeed be valid, but unless she can produce actual evidence of it, evidence that can't be more easily explained by something else (Occam's Razor is a bitch, innit?), her claims of the divine are meaningless.

Y u no luv Jee-sus?

Because I'm a big meanie.  Just as his god made me.

[IanHulett]

Randy, will anything convince you to become an atheist?

Based on what I know, no.

If you've answered no, then you're just trying to convert people.

Yes, of course.

You're being intellectually dishonest.

No, I'm not.

Actually, not being willing to change your mind based on evidence is one way a person can be intellectually dishonest. And why are you trying to convert people to your faith, who don't use faith to begin with? People who prefer evidence, over belief without evidence? Something verifiable over something not verifiable? You know it's futile to try and get a skeptic to accept something as fact when they see so many problems with it. There are too many problems with Christianity, so you're just wasting your one and only life trying to convert someone who can see through the lies of religion to begin with.