Belief in Christ is evidence based

[Kinich Ahau]

And your argument is a lemon. 🍋🍋🍋

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

1) Testimonial evidence only points to a person believing something, not to the thing that they believe

Wrong! Testimonial evidence of course points to a person believing something, but not "only". Testimonial evidence also, clearly "points to" the thing that they believe.

I can't believe your even trying to assert this argument.

In a court of law, why do you think witnesses are called to the witness stand retard? To give EVIDENCE! And the more witnesses the stronger the evidence to the alleged (witnessed to) event.

There were many many witnesses attesting they saw Jesus alive after death!

Further there is support to the credibility of the Christian witnesses, in that they continued, despite great peril, to teach the religion, based on their knowledge that Christ rose from death. Many fell to their death accordingly, why would they do this if they didn't believe in what they were saying (Christ rose!).

Davin wrote

2) There is no existing testimonial from the time of this alleged Jesus' death, all of them come from 60-200 years after the alleged death

Wrong again! How do you think the discovered written records came to be, even years after Jesus's death. By oral tradition (starting immediately after the death and post mortem appearances of Jesus), and of course there were very likely written documents which have been lost.

But I don't need to rely on early records - even old records are still evidence (e.g. Roy Moore accuser's testimony is 40 years old, and everyone seems to believe it).

Also you clearly haven't cracked open a book on New testament scholarship (maybe less crack and heroin, and more cracking open books Ha Ha).

Literally analysis of the early Christian documents points to information arising only a year or two after Christ's death. By the way, don't bother introducing a red herring and challenging me on this.. I again submit this info as a point of interest, but expressly do not rely on it for my simple statement of fact, that Christianity is based on evidence!

[Andrew66]

Kinich Ahau wrote

And your argument is a lemon. 🍋🍋🍋

Its not even an argument, it is a fact.

Hey KA, remember when you said a story is not evidence? Well Roy Moore's accuser presents a "story" of him molesting her when she was 14, does this mean that you don't believe the woman? Just curious?

If you turn out to be a Trump supporter I'll forgive you for your lazy, flawed and imprecise thinking.

By the way, also I'm sure everyone wonders, do you swallow?

[Davin]

Dumbass66 wrote

Wrong!

A testimony is only evidence that the person believes something, it's not evidence for the thing they believe. For instance, I believe that even the most idiotic of people can learn how to think rationally, but you're actual evidence that it's not always possible.

Now, you've proven to be very stupid, but I'll give this a go anyway. As for why courts accept witness testimony as evidence, well, that evidence is easily squashed in courts by showing that the character of the witness makes the witness unreliable. If the testimony itself were evidence of the belief, then the character of the believer wouldn't matter at all in a court of law. Given your track record here, I doubt that you have the mental capacity to understand the reality of this.

Dumbass66 wrote

Wrong again!

I'm really not, dumbshit. The earliest record of the "testimonies" only date back to 40 years at the earliest after the alleged death. The other ones can only be dated back to much later.

http://www.bc.edu/schools/stm/crossr...hegospels.html

Although some scholars disagree, the vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70.

This scholarly consensus holds that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were composed, independently of one another, sometime in the 80s or 90s.

The problem is, that even if "Mark" somehow was able to live beyond the average lifespan of his time, the book was written much later than the account he was supposedly meant to be witnessing for. And the name "Mark," as the consensus of biblical scholars agree, isn't even the author's name. It was attributed to "Mark" later.

These are not first hand witness accounts, and you'll find that the consensus of biblical scholars agree with me on this point. That is if you were smart enough to be able to read and comprehend.

All you've provided is a bunch of ignorant bullshit. You're incredibly stupid.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

A testimony is only evidence that the person believes something, it's not evidence for the thing they believe.

Just restating bullshit doesn't make it true. Fallacy - Badgering.

Davin wrote

For instance, I believe that even the most idiotic of people can learn how to think rationally, but you're actual evidence that it's not always possible.

This is a very poor example of what you're trying to show.

A witnesses event (something seen, heard etc.) comes first, and then a belief in one's own senses that the witnessed event was real comes second. Testimony on the evidence can be given and entered into evidence.

In your example it would be more correct to say - here is evidence that Andrew66 cannot think rationally despite how hard I try to help him, therefore, based on this evidence, I am forced to change my prior belief that all people can be taught to think rationally.

Your example therefore only supports my point that observation on a matter gives rise to evidence - which can be offered as testimony.

Davin wrote

As for why courts accept witness testimony as evidence,

Thank you for admitting that witness testimony is evidence! Thanks for giving me the debate!!!

Davin wrote

well, that evidence is easily squashed in courts by showing that the character of the witness makes the witness unreliable. If the testimony itself were evidence of the belief, then the character of the believer wouldn't matter at all in a court of law.

You are again conflating the "evidence", with "an opinion on the validity of the evidence". Fallacy - conflation.

And your argument additionally fails as well, because when looks at the early Christian witnesses, they appear credible because they went on to teach the faith of Christianity, even in face of great peril and without any other attributed beneficial motive.

Davin wrote

I'm really not, dumbshit. The earliest record of the "testimonies" only date back to 40 years at the earliest after the alleged death. The other ones can only be dated back to much later.

Wrong. Study Paul, the pre Pauline versus which attest to the resurrection of our Lord and Savior. Again who cares, old evidence is still evidence.

So many fallacies, Davin really is a Fallacy Factory!

[dogpet]

As the persistent troll has wilfully ignored the testimony in post 205;

Mark is easily the most reliable evidence in the whole new testament. Evidence that there was no virgin birth, & no walking dead. Because if the stories were around, they would have to have been mentioned!

[Andrew66]

I've been given this a bit of consideration.

I'm willing to concede that in some instances, testimonial evidence could be deemed so unreliable that it ceases to be evidence, under certain circumstances.

For example

If I assert "Davin smokes crack". This assertion alone, without support is not evidence.

If I assert "I, at 10 am did witness Davin smoking crack at his regular street corner", then this because primary testimonial evidence.

However, if it is found out later that Smelly paid me 10000 dollars to say I saw Davin smoking crack, and it was proven that I accepted the money for this purpose, then what was deemed evidence could be "squashed" or dismissed as no longer evidence.

So testimonial evidence may be dismissed if there is a proven ulterior motive which is compelling, to strongly suggest the witness may be lying.

With regards to the witnessed testimony relating to the Resurrection however, to my knowledge the accounts are credible. The witnesses had in fact paradoxically incentive "not" to bear witness - it was dangerous to do so, as they would have been seen as committing blasphemy - where they would face severe punishments including death. In fact many did die.

What ulterior motive would the apostles and Jesus followers have had to propagate what they believed to be a fake religion?. Why compelling reason is there that they would have lied?

Please supply me this info. I'm willing to be reasonable. .

[Andrew66]

dogpet wrote

As the persistent troll has wilfully ignored the testimony in post 205;

Mark is easily the most reliable evidence in the whole new testament. Evidence that there was no virgin birth, & no walking dead. Because if the stories were around, they would have to have been mentioned!

Firstly, absence of evidence (explicit mention that Jesus was seen alive by witnesses) is not evidence for absence. This is critical thinking 101.

Secondly, the original Mark implies, in facts states, Jesus is risen. This could mean resurrection, and not just spiritual exhautation.

Thirdly, to my reading Mark so abruptly ends, it meets - it seems intentionally, the criterion of a modern day "cliff hanger". Maybe the abrupt ending is meant to imply "and the rest is history" (perhaps the sightings of Jesus were so common and famous he didn't feel it needed mention). Maybe there was a part 2, lost? Maybe the other Gospels pick up where Mark left off? Maybe funding for the author dried up, or the author was killed, so the story was foreshortened?

My point is that you are wrong, that" if the stories were around, they would have to have been mentioned"- there are plenty of reasonable alternatives.

Therefore that the literary work of Mark doesn't meet your personal standards certainty does not disqualify the evidence relating to the Resurrection.

Sighhhh, why do I have to explain everything?

[Smellyoldgit]

Dumb Twat wrote

I've been given this a bit of consideration.

I'm willing to concede that in some instances, testimonial evidence could be deemed so unreliable that it ceases to be evidence, under certain circumstances.

I wonder if the authorities would call you to give evidence at the trial of someone for a murder committed 35 years before you were born?

[dogpet]

Andrew66 wrote

Firstly, absence of evidence (explicit mention that Jesus was seen alive by witnesses) is not evidence for absence. This is critical thinking 101.

Secondly, the original Mark implies, in facts states, Jesus is risen. This could mean resurrection, and not just spiritual exhautation.

Thirdly, to my reading Mark so abruptly ends, it meets - it seems intentionally, the criterion of a modern day "cliff hanger". Maybe the abrupt ending is meant to imply "and the rest is history" (perhaps the sightings of Jesus were so common and famous he didn't feel it needed mention). Maybe there was a part 2, lost? Maybe the other Gospels pick up where Mark left off? Maybe funding for the author dried up, or the author was killed, so the story was foreshortened?

My point is that you are wrong, that" if the stories were around, they would have to have been mentioned"- there are plenty of reasonable alternatives.

Therefore that the literary work of Mark doesn't meet your personal standards certainty does not disqualify the evidence relating to the Resurrection.

Sighhhh, why do I have to explain everything?

Comedy gold.

[Davin]

Dumbshit66 wrote

Just restating bullshit doesn't make it true.

It's already true, persistent denial of it doesn't make it false.

Dumbshit66 wrote

Fallacy - Badgering.

That's not a fallacy, dumbass.

Dumbshit66 wrote

Your example therefore only supports my point that observation on a matter gives rise to evidence - which can be offered as testimony.

I get it, you're too stupid to understand what I said, but you don't have to pretend like you do and make yourself look like an idiot.

Dumbshit66 wrote

Thank you for admitting that witness testimony is evidence! Thanks for giving me the debate!!!

Wow, you're pretty stupid. I said this from the beginning, testimony is only evidence that a person believes a thing, it's not evidence for the thing. If that was all you needed, then you should have seen that days ago. That it took you this long makes you look very stupid.

Dumbshit66 wrote

You are again conflating the "evidence"[...]

Hey, little moron, it's OK to not understand something, I'll try to help you out, just tell me which parts of what I said were too difficult for your pathetic little mind to understand.

Dumbshit66 wrote

Wrong. Study Paul, the pre Pauline versus which attest to the resurrection of our Lord and Savior. Again who cares, old evidence is still evidence.

You're so stupid. Paul never claimed to witness the death or resurrection of Jesus, he claimed to see a Jesus spirit appear to him one night.

Dumbshit66 wrote

So many fallacies, Davin really is a Fallacy Factory!

I get why you would want this to be true, because you commit at least a few fallacies every time you post something, so you want to pretend like it's other people doing it. But until you actually understand what fallacies are, you just look stupid every time to try to say another person is committing one.

[Davin]

For Dipshit66:

[Andrew66]

Smellyoldgit wrote

I wonder if the authorities would call you to give evidence at the trial of someone for a murder committed 35 years before you were born?

Hi Smelly
Kind of a weak, have awake reply - are you hung over.?
The information relating to the Gospels was collected around the time that eye witnesses were still alive.
The writings relating to Paul (Pre - Pauline phrases) accounts of the resurrection are very close to the actual event.

For me to give "evidence" on a murder committed 35 years before I was born, I could only do this as a historian or a journalist, presenting evidence which was collected and arose from the time of the alleged crime.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

testimony is only evidence that a person believes a thing, it's not evidence for the thing.

There is a ring of truth here, and I've addressed it a few threads earlier.

An assertion, or an allegation (often an accusation) offered as testimony - can be made. Not only may it not be true, but it does not even guarantee that the alleger "believes" what he / she is saying (the presenter could be lying for ulterior motives). For these type of statements I agree that they in themselves are not evidence. They need support.

Example - (1) Lets say I allege, "Davin smokes crack."

The reason I say this is for fun, I have no evidence it is true. I do it as a playful insult. I do it to entertain. I think everyone knows that. The statement (testimony) I agree is not evidence.

However (2), if I were to say "I did see, at 10 am, Davin smoking crack in my presence after purchasing said crack" then this allegation has weight as evidence. It is not necessarily strong evidence, but the evidence needs at least preliminary consideration.

In example (2) to be candid I would never say that, even though I think Davin is a piece of shit. He doesn't deserve to be seriously called a crackhead. Also, I would not say that for fear of a defamation law suit.

So if I did say that (as a testimony) - unless someone can point to a compelling motive while I'd lie, it counts as evidence. It might be weak evidence, as I am the only witness - but it has weight and deserves consideration.

However (3), the testimony of (2) could be overturned and dismissed (so its no longer standing as evidence), only if a compelling reason why I would lye is uncovered. Examples - duress (I'm blackmailed to say it), profit (I'm paid to say it), extreme hatred (Davin would have had to have done something really really bad against me) etc.

I am willing to take this line of thinking =- and challenge the Atheists to explain to me, why the testimony from Gospels and other sources relating to the Resurrection is, in a similar light, corrupt. ?

What ulterior motives did the early Biblical writers for promoting a false faith? As I've mentioned, there are many reasons why they should not have committed fraud, I'm asking are there reasons that they would have had an incentive to knowingly committed fraud???.

Another argument I would consider is if it can be shown that any of the resurrection documents entered into evidence were tampered with expressly after the formation of the Christian Church (ie. when the Church itself may have benefited by promotion of the resurrection account perhaps for profit, or to gain political force?)

To my knowledge the resurrection belief was used as a basis to form the Church from the outset - and not promote an already recognized religion - , and the original writers were more likely to be killed than to make a penny of profit - but you all are welcome to show me that I'm wrong.

[dogpet]