re: He is risen.

quote:

---

Believe or don't, proggie. It's your choice.

---

I love how you know one thing about me and assume that I am a progressive. I voted for Trump. I think for myself and don’t prescribe to silly binary politics. I make informed decisions and I actually care about the truth.

quote:

---

ust a short primer we can discuss more if you like but, mary jo sharp has done a good job refuting these dumb comparisons

---

I wasn’t making an argument that these other religions were a basis for disproving christianity. I was making a logical analogy for your fallacious dismissal of burden of proof.

quote:

---

it's not logic at all and it definitely is spineless because the person who invokes it is just hiding behind the manufactured presumption of atheism/skepticism

---

quote:

---

not in any way shape or form. this is a juvenile tactic made up by people on the internet who can't substantiate their critical position.

---

No, the burden of proof is a basic logical principle understood long before the internet existed. You cannot have a basis for determining truth without establishing that those who make a claim are required to provide evidence for that claim. If your fallacious thought process was adopted then there would be no possible way to filter out ridiculous claims such as: “Hitler survived the invasion of Germany and escaped to Argentina, prove that wasn’t the case otherwise my point is valid.” This, of course, is inconvenient for you thus you choose to dismiss it outright in principle.

quote:

---

and i've given good reason why they should not be believed

---

Ok so I’ll give you several reasons as to why the resurrection story is more likely simply mythology as opposed to a recording of history.

1. It is physically impossible for someone to sustain the injuries that the story claims occurred to Jesus and to be dead for several days only to be resurrected.

2. There is no evidence or reason to believe that spiritual beings such as angels or ghosts exist. The concept of an angel or ghost is a reoccurring concept born from the desire for an afterlife and a connection to the deceased.

3. The mere concept of an omnipotent, omniscient god creating a universe which contains creatures that are only able to seek salvation from a tortuous infinite existence because of a sadistic tortuous sacrifice is outrageous.

4. The prerequisit to the story, Jesus’s supposed virgin birth, isn’t possible.

So yes, it is more reasonable to assume this story is nothing more than mythology just as any other outrageous religion is. You can try to twist logic all you want but it wont save you from the fact that your beliefs are as reasonable as the people in Egypt who believed in Osiris and the many other gods of that time.

quote:

---

and don't start with the spineless you can't prove a negative. the contention is that something OTHER than the resurrection happened, like two body, swoon, whatever. let's see you man up and prove your case.

---

1) corpse was placed there and sealed off by living humans
2) few days pass
3) corpse was not there upon inspection
...
4a) corpse resurrected itself and is visiting old friends
4b) corpse was moved by living humans

4a vs 4b is a really tough choice i know

quote:

---

I was making a logical analogy for your fallacious dismissal of burden of proof

---

it's not fallacious and yes i did dismiss it. because it's stupid. christian philosophers have been doing a great job in recent years debunking the presumption of atheism. the 4 (now 3) horsemen never caught on. but they're soooooo brilliant!

quote:

---

You cannot have a basis for determining truth without establishing that those who make a claim are required to provide evidence for that claim

---

and christianity has met this standard in spades. but that's not what the problem is. skeptics are saying christianity's account is "not what happened" without substantiating what they think happened. hence, the spineless part.

quote:

---

If your fallacious thought process was adopted then there would be no possible way to filter out ridiculous claims such as: “Hitler survived the invasion of Germany and escaped to Argentina, prove that wasn’t the case otherwise my point is valid.”

---

and of course you can't respond to me without misrepresenting my position. in your analogy, the person saying that hitler did not escape should be able to prove hitler actually died in europe. otherwise, they can't definitively say that hitler is not in south america. see how that works? you don't get to just take potshots from the sidelines and never get in the game with your own theory. and christianity isn't mere resting on the absence of disproof. christianity has TONS of validation. but you knew that already, right?

quote:

---

It is physically impossible for someone to sustain the injuries that the story claims occurred to Jesus and to be dead for several days only to be resurrected

---

this is only the case if god does not exist. prove that god does not exist (i.e. naturalism is all there is). otherwise, your rebuttal has no explanatory power.

quote:

---

There is no evidence or reason to believe that spiritual beings such as angels or ghosts exist

---

yet, almost everyone who has ever lived disagrees with you. why should they believe your presumption of atheism?

quote:

---

The mere concept of an omnipotent, omniscient god creating a universe which contains creatures that are only able to seek salvation from a tortuous infinite existence because of a sadistic tortuous sacrifice is outrageous

---

outrageous based on what standard because countless people who have been christians disagree with you

quote:

---

The prerequisit to the story, Jesus’s supposed virgin birth, isn’t possible

---

only if naturalism is all there is. good luck proving that

quote:

---

it is more reasonable to assume this story is nothing more than mythology just as any other outrageous religion is

---

check out gary habermas' minimal facts presentation. even secular scholars agree the tomb was empty

quote:

---

logic and the scientific method are spineless because why exactly?

---

logic and the scientific method have NOTHING to do with casual rhetorical conversations. these conversations aren't even a court of law or a formal debate.

quote:

---

Haven't found a way to defeat basic logical concepts?

---

again, saying "that's not what happened" without proving what you think happened is illogical. and spineless

quote:

---

Let's see you man up and admit you don't have a shred of evidence for your narcissistic afterlife

---

you mean other than all the evidence that is floating around? so is this specific question about naturalism vs supernaturalism? let's get specific

quote:

---

you are operating on faith and faith alone

---

faith is only irrational to irrational people

quote:

---

thank you for your accidental admission that you place no value on logic, evidence and truth when conversing with other people

---

of course i never said that and any person looking through my post history will see that your comment does not even remotely apply to my posts. we were discussing the burden of proof in casual conversations and how skeptics operate from a presumption of their position and think they can substantiate their own position by merely denying another

here's something else to note, you are doing precisely what i said skeptics do - failing to substantiate your own position and getting mired down in silly conversations about the burden of proof. you people will twist yourselves into pretzels to avoid producing any evidence for your position

quote:

---

and who were these people who got past the 16 roman guards (who would have been executed for such a failure), rolled away a stone that would have required multiple men to spirit away the body? and then his followers (who i assume you think stole the body) went all over the world putting themselves in mortal danger to perpetuate a lie? yeah, that makes sense.

---

most likely jesus was never put in a tomb and was left hanging on the cross for the birds