Book Plunge: Can Christians Prove The Resurrection?

[Gary]

Oh good, a Gary clone.

You need an argument. And saying "superstition" is not an argument. Fundy atheism 101 didn't teach you that, now did it?

Stein,

It is obvious reading Keener's book that the Christian evidence for miracles today, and miracles in the past, rests almost entirely on eyewitness testimony. "If hundreds of millions of eyewitnesses testify to the reality of miracles, they can't all be wrong, can they?"

Although eyewitness testimony has served a crucial role in the courts of law for millennia, modern science has shown just how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be. Therefore, asking us to believe that a small handful of first century peasants saw a literal walking/talking dead body, based on stories in four anonymous ancient books, written decades after the alleged event, two and maybe three of those books borrowing heavily from the first, is just NOT good evidence.

It is very, very, very poor evidence. We would never believe such a wild claim today based on this very weak evidence. Yet Christians have built their entire lives around this ancient ghost sighting!

You are all under a delusion. I am trying to help you see that. And for that reason, I am reading your books.

[Bisto]

And you are proving mine. In the modern world, there is no difference between making the claim for the reality of a reanimated/resurrected, walking/talking dead body and the reality of mermaids, sea monsters, and ghosts. The only evidence for any of these entities is eyewitness testimony, which modern science has shown to be incredibly unreliable.

I though the quotes from studies you brought forth (about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony to identify criminals from other races) proved more the interchangeable-ness with which we identify people from races different than our own, rather than the general unreliability of eyewitness itself (as applicable to miracle claims)?

Isn't that extrapolating valid conclusions to unwanted extremes? Imagine your world if you treated all eyewitness testimony with the level of skepticism you would treat the witness of an old caucasian lady saying the black boy standing in the corner is the same guy who robbed her wallet the other day.


Please note this has nothing to do with defending fairy-believers and whatnot (lol), but your own methodology as seen from what you have brought to this thread.


Edit: I will add that I find amusing the idea Mr. Gary seems to have of 3rd World nations. As Mr. Nick et al have said repeatedly, what you regard as "modern 1st world scientific knowledge" is common knowledge and it's been shown the ancients also had this common knowledge to a large enough extent. You seem to have a very low view of us 3rd World-ers. I would be insulted if it wasn't so hilarious!!

[Secular Liberation]

Obviously you don't.

Thanks for proving my point on atheistic presuppositionalism.

It's not atheistic presuppositionalism, it's clear, well accepted common knowledge that he presented.

[Secular Liberation]

Oh good, a Gary clone.

You need an argument. And saying "superstition" is not an argument. Fundy atheism 101 didn't teach you that, now did it?

Did you read any of my posts?

[Gary]

I though the quotes from studies you brought forth (about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony to identify criminals from other races) proved more the interchangeable-ness with which we identify people from races different than our own, rather than the general unreliability of eyewitness itself (as applicable to miracle claims)?

Isn't that extrapolating valid conclusions to unwanted extremes? Imagine your world if you treated all eyewitness testimony with the level of skepticism you would treat the witness of an old caucasian lady saying the black boy standing in the corner is the same guy who robbed her wallet the other day.



Please note this has nothing to do with defending fairy-believers and whatnot (lol), but your own methodology as seen from what you have brought to this thread.


Edit: I will add that I find amusing the idea Mr. Gary seems to have of 3rd World nations. As Mr. Nick et al have said repeatedly, what you regard as "modern 1st world scientific knowledge" is common knowledge and it's been shown the ancients also had this common knowledge to a large enough extent. You seem to have a very low view of us 3rd World-ers. I would be insulted if it wasn't so hilarious!!

Wrong. You are misquoting me. I have a low regard for the eyewitness testimony regarding supernatural events from superstitious, uneducated Third World peasants (and minimally educated First World "peasants"). I have a high regard for all educated, informed people, regardless of nationality, culture, or race.

[Secular Liberation]

Wrong. You are misquoting me. I have a low regard for the eyewitness testimony regarding supernatural events from uneducated Third World peasants (and minimally educated First World "peasants"). I have a high regard for all educated, informed people, regardless of nationality.

By Bisto's logic, Muhammad's revelation is just as reliable as the Gospels because the same common knowledge existed in 7th century Arabia.

[Apologiaphoenix]

It's not atheistic presuppositionalism, it's clear, well accepted common knowledge that he presented.

Common knowledge meaning "Things commonly accepted by atheists."

[Apologiaphoenix]

No, it is called agnostic/atheistic rationalism. We believe in the reality of concepts and entities based on empirical evidence, not based on faith in the unreliable eyewitness testimony, of superstitious, uneducated Third World (and first century) peasants!

You're doing a better job demonstrating my point than you realize.

[Bisto]

Wrong. You are misquoting me. I have a low regard for the eyewitness testimony regarding supernatural events from superstitious, uneducated Third World peasants (and minimally educated First World "peasants"). I have a high regard for all educated, informed people, regardless of nationality, culture, or race.

I see. I apologize for the misquote

Well, for my part, I haven't seen anything particularly weird about the "uneducated Third World peasants" I have come to know through recent years since my family and I moved to a countryside region. Or maybe my eyewitness about them is unreliable itself, you never know .

[Secular Liberation]

Common knowledge meaning "Things commonly accepted by atheists."

So only atheists know that people in poverty will accept miracles like a statue of Jesus bleeding or Cheeto Jesus because they lack proper education to know a fraud when they see one? Glad your honest on our tendency of intellectual superiority and Christendom's lack thereof.

[Gary]

I see. I apologize for the misquote

Well, for my part, I haven't seen anything particularly weird about the "uneducated Third World peasants" I have come to know through recent years since my family and I moved to a countryside region. Or maybe my eyewitness about them is unreliable itself, you never know .

I will post several links below which demonstrate just how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-eyes-have-it/

"Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing, playing a role in more than 70% of convictions overturned through DNA testing nationwide."

Source: http://www.innocenceproject.org/caus...identification

the mere fault of being human results in distorted memory and inaccurate testimony."

Source: http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue...er&tversky.htm

"Iowa State University experimental social psychologist Gary Wells, PhD, a member of a 1999 U.S. Department of Justice panel that published the first-ever national guidelines on gathering eyewitness testimony, says Loftus's model suggests that crime investigators need to think about eyewitness evidence in the same way that they think about trace evidence. Like trace evidence, eyewitness evidence can be contaminated, lost, destroyed or otherwise made to produce results that can lead to an incorrect reconstruction of the crime," he says. Investigators who employ a scientific model to collect, analyze and interpret eyewitness evidence may avoid incidents like Olson's potentially flawed identification of the Fairbanks suspects, he notes."

Source: http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx

"Australian eyewitness expert Donald Thomson appeared on a live TV discussion about the unreliability of eyewitness memory. He was later arrested, placed in a lineup and identified by a victim as the man who had raped her. The police charged Thomson although the rape had occurred at the time he was on TV. They dismissed his alibi that he was in plain view of a TV audience and in the company of the other discussants, including an assistant commissioner of police. The policeman taking his statement sneered, "Yes, I suppose you've got Jesus Christ, and the Queen of England, too." Eventually, the investigators discovered that the rapist had attacked the woman as she was watching TV - the very program on which Thompson had appeared. Authorities eventually cleared Thomson. The woman had confused the rapist's face with the face that she had seen on TV. (Baddeley, 2004). "

Source: http://www.visualexpert.com/Resource...essmemory.html

[Apologiaphoenix]

So only atheists know that people in poverty will accept miracles like a statue of Jesus bleeding or Cheeto Jesus because they lack proper education to know a fraud when they see one? Glad your honest on our tendency of intellectual superiority and Christendom's lack thereof.

Missing the point again. Wanna try again?

[Bisto]

By Bisto's logic, Muhammad's revelation is just as reliable as the Gospels because the same common knowledge existed in 7th century Arabia.

Hello friend, it's very nice to meet you. My name is Isaac. Who are thou?

I personally couldn't say, I have very little knowledge of Islam. I guess I'll look into it in some years. Could you clarify your statement please? Thanks!

[Bisto]

I will post several links below which demonstrate just how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-eyes-have-it/

"Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing, playing a role in more than 70% of convictions overturned through DNA testing nationwide."

Source: http://www.innocenceproject.org/caus...identification

the mere fault of being human results in distorted memory and inaccurate testimony."

Source: http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue...er&tversky.htm

"Iowa State University experimental social psychologist Gary Wells, PhD, a member of a 1999 U.S. Department of Justice panel that published the first-ever national guidelines on gathering eyewitness testimony, says Loftus's model suggests that crime investigators need to think about eyewitness evidence in the same way that they think about trace evidence. Like trace evidence, eyewitness evidence can be contaminated, lost, destroyed or otherwise made to produce results that can lead to an incorrect reconstruction of the crime," he says. Investigators who employ a scientific model to collect, analyze and interpret eyewitness evidence may avoid incidents like Olson's potentially flawed identification of the Fairbanks suspects, he notes."

Source: http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx

But those links do the same as the previous ones: they show the problems in eyewitness identification of criminals. No problem with that. But to what point can we legitimately extend those conclusions?

I remember reading this study on the evaluation of eyewitness reliability (or lack thereof) behind the Gospel stories: http://www.christianthinktank.com/mqfx.html but I don't have the time to make particular points from it. As one who reads the links you provide here, I say you might want to check it out, it won't cost you money like Keener's book.

[Gary]

As I demonstrated above, eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable today, when most people have at least a high school education. The disciples of Jesus were uneducated. It is highly unlikely that any of them had any formal schooling. And we know that people of that culture believed in ghosts from the story about seeing Jesus walking on water. The disciples initially thought he was a ghost. So we have a small group of poorly educated, ghost-seeing fishermen claiming to see a walking/talking dead guy.

These guys were not quality witnesses.

No one with an education should buy their tall tale.