Toto

This is all an argument out of Alice in Wonderland.

There is "evidence" to support the Resurrection, but it is such flimsy, inadequate evidence that I can't see why anyone would object to the statement that there is no evidence for the Resurrection, except to pick a fight. There is no eyewitness information or even second hand reports of eyewitness information that has any shred of credibility for the basic claims of Christianity.

But unfortunately, there are Christians who solemnly claim that there is valid historical evidence that the Resurrection happened, and manage to fool people who don't know enough about standards of historical evidence. These people are then recruited into what I can only think of as cults, where they end up sending their money to the cult leaders and doing things that are against their own interests. It is a public benefit to explain to the general populace that in fact there is no historical proof of Christianity, and its claims should be treated very skeptically.

If Christians just kept to themselves and practiced their religion in private, there would be no particular reason to try to debunk its claims, any more than there is any reason to tell an 8 yr old that Santa doesn't exist. But they are actively proselytizing their irrational faith. Evangelical Christians do not convert people based on the idea that the Resurrection is a nice story but it didn't really happen. They claim that everything about it is historically true. They are either lying or mistaken.

hatsoff

Actually, I just mentioned it to be precise. Whenever people start throwing out "no evidence" posts, it just rubs me the wrong way.

TySixtus

Because no one in their right mind would consider stories written 2,000 years ago by people who weren't there "evidence".

Ty

Tuffa Nuff

As I understand it, Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God. He was God incarnate, so in a sense he was God.

As I understand it, Christians believe that their god is ***all powerful, all knowledgeable and all wise***. They contend that God can do ANYTHING. Logic or sense has nothing to do with it.

They believe that the resurrection happened, and don't actually need the kind of evidence that you (Ty), or I might. You can't argue matters with them, from the point of view of a logical, sceptic using common sense.

Maybe you'd like to get the Christian brigade to say that it is a load of bunkum, but they won't. They believe that where their god is concerned, anything is possible. After that it's just a matter of interpreting what evidence or lack of it there is, as being in support of their premise: ie. God exists and has the characteristics I mentioned above (***).

Of course if there is(are) no god(s), then we can use logic and acceptable knowledge in discussing issues.

Tuffa.

BDS

I have no idea if there is 'valid historical evidence' to support the Resurrection. Personally, I wouldn't use the word "valid" -- I'd prefer "credible" or "solid" or "incontrovertable". That's because valid (in the language of logic, as opposed to every-day talk) means "logically sound" -- and that's not the problem with the (admittedly shaky) evidence about the Resurrection. So there's shaky evidence; eye witness accounts reported third hand a century later; some mild support for auxillary details of said eye witness accounts (like the existance of Pontias Pilate, or Herod); etc. It's utterly reasonable to say, "I might accept shaky, tenuous evidence for something that appears likely to have happened, but it takes better evidence than that to persuade me of something that seems impossible."

The way you phrase it, Toto, is reasonable (except I wouldn't say that the historical evidence is "invalid", just that it's not very persuasive, in order to use words carefully). However, Ty isn't arguing that. Instead, he's arguing that 1) There's no evidence. Not a shred. and 2) Even if there was evidence, he wouldn't believe it because (in huge letters) people don't rise from the dead. This position is 1) illogical, 2) anti-scientific and anti-historical (because his preconceived notions trump any possible evidence).

My only roll in this discussion has been to point this out. Illogical and anti-scientific positions are standard practice for Fundamentalists. Need we atheists emulate them?

hatsoff

I agree completely. Well put.

Thomas II

What about the part of the ASCENSION? Some say there were 500 witnesses, but was there an actual ascension? How far up did he go? Did he stay there,...hovering... or after a while,when everyone was gone, did he come back down and went home?
Are we to believe that "Heaven" is someplace UP THERE? Again, how far up is Heaven?
Past Pluto? :huh:

Toto

I contend that there is no eyewitness testimony, whether third hand or 22nd hand. There are literary statements that believers would like to think are based on eyewitness testimony, but that belief has no basis in fact or logic or experience with eyewitness testimony (or literature).

So there is no valid evidence. Ty's statement is perhaps a bit emotional or more forceful than diplomatic, but not inaccurate. He is not being illogical, anti-scientific, or anti-historical - science and logic say that people do not rise from the dead after three days, and historical method says that legendary reports of people rising from the dead have no particular validity as evidence.

If you are carrying on a debate with someone who does believe that miracles are possible, you might want to concede the possibility in order to keep lines of communication open, and then argue from that position. But that would be the only reason.

In today's world, with our experience of the scientific method, saying that people do not rise from the dead is like saying that the sun cannot stand still in the sky. It just doesn't happen.

Your role in the discussion has not been helpful.

hatsoff

You may be correct, or you may not. But let's say Jesus never existed and that the whole affair came from imaginative invention. Even then, we still have evidence for the resurrection--albeit extremely, extremely weak evidence. Eusebius, Irenaeus, Justin and Ignatius all report what they have heard and read, which claimed to be based on earlier accounts, which in turn claimed to be based on even earlier accounts, and so on. So we still have evidence, weak or not.

Actually, it is based quite a bit in fact. However, I do agree that those facts are incredibly far from convincing, and thus their beliefs are not logical.

Ty's statement was totally wrong. He said there's no evidence, when there clearly is. Whether or not you think it's valid is another matter.

That is true, but it doesn't seem to be what this thread is about. Regardless of how convincing or "valid" you find it, there is evidence that the resurrection happened. Now, like I've said several times now, it is *very* weak. However, the OP's blanket assertion that there's "not a shred," coupled with his derogatory attitude towards Christianity, makes me want to point out the error of his premise and utter uselessness of his argument.

I've enjoyed his posts.

hatsoff

Hey, he answered your question; what else could he do? I'm sorry you demand a "yes or no" response to such an open-ended issue.

How about this: Am I wearing shoes, yes or no? And I expect you to back up that claim with convincing evidence. Oh, and if you try to tell me you don't know, I'm going to insult you and then ignore you.