Belief in Christ is evidence based

[dogpet]

Have you noticed how the troll picks up on words we type & inserts them into his diatribe. Partisan was the latest one. Diatribe will be the next.
One thing will never change though, there are always more fallacies.

[Andrew66]

dogpet wrote

Have you noticed how the troll picks up on words we type & inserts them into his diatribe. Partisan was the latest one. Diatribe will be the next.
One thing will never change though, there are always more fallacies.

Fuck you dogpet, I was the first to ever use the word "partisan" on this site!

By the way its impolite to speak about someone as if there are not there.

What is a troll anyway?

[dogpet]

Andrew66 wrote

Fuck you dogpet, I was the first to ever use the word "partisan" on this site!

By the way its impolite to speak about someone as if there are not there.

What is a troll anyway?

The troll may well be right that he was the first to ever use the word "partisan" on this site! If only we had a search function.

[Andrew66]

dogpet wrote

The troll may well be right that he was the first to ever use the word "partisan" on this site! If only we had a search function.

Thank you dogpet, it takes courage, grace and decency to admit and error and provide a retraction.

I remember being first to say partisan, I might of misspelled it or used in incorrectly - so Davin of course made fun of me. That's why I remember.

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

Witnessed testimony counts as evidence. Period.

Testimony 40-200 years too late is not witnessed. Full stop.
Drooling fool.

[Smellyoldgit]

dogpet wrote

The troll may well be right that he was the first to ever use the word "partisan" on this site! If only we had a search function.

25th October 2004. by "Paradox"

[dogpet]

Smellyoldgit wrote

25th October 2004. by "Paradox"

Tch! You & your pesky evidence.

[Andrew66]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Testimony 40-200 years too late is not witnessed. Full stop.
Drooling fool.

quit repeating BS. I already guided your hand through this, remember my Nixon anecdote? Documentation given years after an event can still attest (and therefore comprise evidence) to the event happening.

When you read a text book , written in 2017 that George Washington was president 200 years ago - and if you found that textbook later (in the absence of other info), that wouldn't be evidence Washington was president.??

Documentation written 40 years after the resurrection is based on interviews of witnesses fuckhead - so it is still witnessed testimony. It may also be based on copying other writings that were more contemporary of the event, or based on verbal accounts which are carefully repeated and maintained (oral tradition).

Don't act obtuse, you are way better than that.

Dumb fuck.

[Smellyoldgit]

You are one smarmy smeghead.
If I write something about an event 40 years before I was born - it is NOT witnessed!
Simple.
Go dribble elsewhere, I have no interest in your continuous horsewank.

[Andrew66]

Smellyoldgit wrote

You are one smarmy smeghead.
If I write something about an event 40 years before I was born - it is NOT witnessed!
Simple.
Go dribble elsewhere, I have no interest in your continuous horsewank.

What if you are copying a written, witnessed affidavit written 40 years before your were born, and then the original affidavit gets lost and your copy is all that survived? Your copy doesn't count?

Also, yours is a poor analogy for the resurrection. The gospel writings and earlier the writings of Paul were taken directly from witnesses. In Paul, the writings about the resurrections are derived from discussions from Peter and James, eye witnesses.

[Andrew66]

Smellyoldgit wrote

25th October 2004. by "Paradox"

How do you know Smelly, did you see Paradox type in the word with your own eyes???? That's pretty old "2004", are you sure this is evidence that someone used the word Paradox?? You are not a first hand witness.

Ha Ha Ha.

[Andrew66]

Interesting

I've watched a couple debates with Craig and others on the resurrection - debating point is whether the resurrection really occurred.

They like to "presuppose" that God exists in their argument!.

To me that's make their debating point (that ressurection actually happened), very weak.

My analysis

If
Christian God exists then historic evidence relating to Jesus's resurrection is very strong.

If
Christian God does not exist, historic evidence relating to Jesus's resurrection is (as Smelly described it correctly) "piss weak".

Any objections to the above analysis??

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

Interesting

I've watched a couple debates with Craig ....

These don't belong in the same sentence/paragraph/article/universe.

[Andrew66]

Smellyoldgit wrote

These don't belong in the same sentence/paragraph/article/universe.

Smelly, how much are you paid to be the mod?

[Smellyoldgit]

The same as you're paid to be an irritating trolling fuckwit.