BDS

Whether the reason is "good" or not is, of course, debatable. However, even these "hearsay" accounts are certainly "evidence" (although hearsay is considered "inadmissable evidence" it is still "evidence"). Any attempt to claim otherwise is mere dissembling.

Amaleq13

That the OP laments the absence of reliable evidence seems fairly obvious.

To read it as a declaration that even unreliable or inadmissable evidence does not exist makes no sense and seems like nothing but a pedantic quibble.

BDS

Actually, the OP states:

Other posts in the thread repeat similar nonsense.

Ty gives a hint as to his prejudices in the last sentence of the quoted portion of the OP. It is not the "lack of evidence" that makes the ressurection unbelievable -- it is the "nonsensical idea of someone rising from the dead."

This is fair. We SHOULD demand persuasive evidence to believe in something that defies common sense. However, we should also recognize that we probably believe in other things for which we have "evidence" that is no more reliable (i.e. hearsay accounts based on eye witness testimony), but that do not defy common sense (i.e. othe rhistorical incidents from the Ancient World). It is not the lack of evidence that makes the Ressurection incredible. It is something else.

Toto

Perhaps it is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For the resurrection, we have exremely inconclusive or weak "evidence" for an extraordinary claim - the practical equivalence of no evidence at all.

TySixtus

My OP is nonsense? Why?

It is both. Eye-witness accounts for something that happened yesterday would be decent evidence. Stories handed down for 40 years before finally being written down, to be used 2000 years later, are not decent evidence.

Additionally, the fact that the Ressurection is such an extraordinary event would require extraordinary evidence.

So my problems (as I stated in the OP) are with both- not only the fact that the Ressurection is nonsensical, but also the fact that there's not even any decent evidence to back it up.

And you're damn right I am "prejudiced" towards the idea of people rising from the dead. Anyone with half a brain should be, too. It is contrary to reason, and anything contrary to reason I am "prejudiced" against, at least in the format of intellectual discourse.

Finally, your prejudice is showing by refering to my OP as "nonsense". Physician, heal thyself.

Okay, so let me ask you: Do you think this evidence exists?

The fact that they do not defy common sense places them in a different category as to what evidence we should accept.

Separate question: Are the Gospels considered "hearsay accounts based on eye witness testimony"? I had thought the main consensus among skeptical scholars was that the Gospels weren't even that. Merely the scribblings of someone who had heard the stories, then decided to write them down based on different audiences (Jews, Gentiles, etc).

As I said, it is both. A ridiculous idea, plus an atrocious lack of evidence.

Ty

Toto

Only by those who are desparate to find a basis for a belief in their history

BDS

Exactly -- except for the bit about "equivalent to no evidence at all". I'm no expert on the evidence, but the Gospels certainly CLAIM to report eye witness accounts.

If the Gospels were equivalent to "no evidence at all", then it would be equally likely that any random person performed miracles, raised Lazurus from the dead, etc. as that Jesus did. Even though most of us atheists think the chances that Jesus did any of these things are infinitesimal, we're only talking about it because there is SOME (albeit unpersuasive) evidence suggesting that he did. I don't see any threads saying, "There's no evidence that BDS rose from the dead."

BDS

I'm not an expert on ancient history. However, I'll bet that some stories from Greek and Roman historians (Plutarch, et. al.) are based on "evidence" not much sounder than those on which the Gospels are based.

In the Battle of Thermopolae it is reported that Leonidas's scouts told him that the Persian army was so numerous, their arrows darkened the sun.

"Good," replied Leonidas. "Then we shall fight in the shade."

Did this really happen? How would I know? Is the fact that this is commonly reported to have happened "evidence"? Sure it is.

Julian

The difference is that the sayings of Leonidas are not pertinent to my salvation.

Maybe he didn't say it, maybe he did. Either way, it makes a good story. Just like the molon labe story of the same battle.

The claim is not outrageous and therefore weak evidence is sufficient and its veracity not all that important.

Julian

BDS

Personally, I think the historical veracity of the Gospels is unimportant, too. The story is important and significant -- whether it actually happened or not. Atheists who care about the historical "evidence" or details remind me of their Christian equivalents -- Fundamentalists.