Evidence Post-Resurrection

[AntiTheist]

if writer X says person Y existed, and then supernatural even Z happened, you would believe person Y existed just because you believe persons exist, while dismissing supernatural event Z because you don’t believe in the supernatural

That’s absolutely right, and it’s not something that I just apply to Christian claims.

In the same exact way, I don’t accept written accounts of alien abductions as evidence that aliens abductions happen, and I don’t accept written accounts of ghosts as evidence that ghosts exist.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you disagree, if you think a bunch of stories is sufficient evidence that disembodied spirits are running around or that aliens are snatching people up, then feel free to be gullible.

the fact that the account made it into scripture and was accepted by the people of its time means there are people who have been witnesses to this and attested to it to the other people of the time.

False. Just because a story was written down decades after an event supposedly happened is not evidence that everything in the story happened, especially the supernatural elements of the story (and it certainly doesn’t indicate that there were eyewitnesses of the supernatural elements of the story).

there’s no document because there was no one to document it.

Buddy, if the dead got up and walked around in a city, the story would have gotten back to someone who was capable of writing it down.

The fact that no one outside the Bible reports this extraordinary event gives us very strong reason to be suspicious of it.

 

[BouncingBall]

Anti-Theist, (and other resident non-theists like Larkin, Call_Me_V, Albert Ball…) is the idea to sit around, lurk in wait for someone to post about their wavering faith so that you can pounce on them with your worldview and derail their faith?

sigh… Seems they cannot respect faith and leave us be. Maybe they really do want religion abolished, one person at a time since it can’t be legislated away.

Jasphair, the evidence is the Catholic Church. We are not making this up. People have things to do, people to see and bills to pay. I mean, why spend all this time reading a big book, going to church, trying to get confirmed, attempting to do no work on one day of the week, composing hymns and prayers…

Jasphair, Men have been called into the light. We owe it to ourselves to look into it, with all options on the table.

 

[choy]

That’s absolutely right, and it’s not something that I just apply to Christian claims.

In the same exact way, I don’t accept written accounts of alien abductions as evidence that aliens abductions happen, and I don’t accept written accounts of ghosts as evidence that ghosts exist.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you disagree, if you think a bunch of stories is sufficient evidence that disembodied spirits are running around or that aliens are snatching people up, then feel free to be gullible.

the apostles already suffered torture and death, yet no one recanted and admitted they were making this up. that has to count for something. they of all people would know if Jesus did rise from the dead or not, because they were first hand witnesses

False. Just because a story was written down decades after an event supposedly happened is not evidence that everything in the story happened, especially the supernatural elements of the story (and it certainly doesn’t indicate that there were eyewitnesses of the supernatural elements of the story).

you’re right, the document is not purely the evidence. but the fact that people accepted the story and no one else refuted it at that time. if the story can be refuted in the first place, it wouldn’t have spread out and reached to the point it had to be writen. and again, it got into writing only because the Greeks demanded written documents

Buddy, if the dead got up and walked around in a city, the story would have gotten back to someone who was capable of writing it down.

The fact that no one outside the Bible reports this extraordinary event gives us very strong reason to be suspicious of it.

sorry but thats your standards, not theirs. like i said, look at the Jewish society for your answers. and whats the use of a writen document? there’s no newspapers back then, and most people can’t read anyways. its sufficient that the information got passed by word of mouth

 

[MarkInOregon]

MarkInOregon: My claim is that there is insufficient evidence to accept these parts of the story. You are accurately noting that there is a lack of evidence, which would mean that I am correct. I think I am noting that there is not an abundance of evidence rather than a lack of evidence.

Now, seriously, you really believe that the dead got up and started walking around?

It’s not like tombs all over the middle east were being thrown open and the dead in droves were coming back to life and were out walking around. Rather some guy named Lazarus, who I don’t know, two days walk from me dies and Jesus comes and raises him from the dead. A week or so later someone comes through my town and tell me the story–I may or may not believe him. And since I don’t read or write I am not writing it down. By the time it gets to the authorities well are they really going to bother with it–it just creates headaches and its not like they know this Lazarus guy. Most of the witnesses may never have left the area to tell the story for all we know and those oppossed to Jesus would have said it was a lie–so why write it down.

Today we have uncorruptibles–Saints who have died and whose bodies remain uncorrupt–contrary to the natural order. Yet these are all but ignored. The miracle of the Sun at Fatima witnessed by many and reported in papers around the world was witnessed by some 70,000 – including skeptics. Mostly ignored and dismissed. And you can find your moon landing and holocaust deniers today. People accept what evidence they want to accept–and dismiss what they don’t want to accept.

And, seriously, you really believe that a bunch a space dust or something created itself out of nothing violating the laws of science, that this stuff assembled itself into planets, stars, etc. and that somehow a single cell of life spontaneously arose, and that this single cell that sparked to life–not only had life but the ability to reproduce–to duplicate itself and that over time through mutation (most of which are detrimental) enough beneficial mutations occured to give us all the diverse life we see on earth today just random occurance? Have you calculated the odds even given an infinite amount of time.

Peace,
Mark