Comments on the Zzyzx / Easyrider debate

[Zzyzx]

I open this thread to encourage people to express their ideas on the topics being discussed in the ZZ vs. ER debate thread.

Of course anyone can post in the original thread because one of us declined opening it in Head to Head (that would have been a controlled one-on-one debate. However, it might be more appropriate to post comments in this thread.

The "questions for debate" are:

1. Does the debate make any sense or is it a waste of time and energy?

2. Would you like to see more one-on-one debates?

3. Is the idea of a “comments on the debate thread” appealing to you?

[Goat]

Easyrider,

I have yet to see you refer to any reference outside of the very book you are trying to prove is not a myth.

Then you've had your head in the sand.

Have you ever heard of anything known as 'circular evidence'. So far, you have failed to live up to your claims.

Well, you've been presented with the truth by numerous Christians around here and you haven't been able to comprehend it yet, so that tells me whatever else you are arguing is probably just another blind squirrel hunt.

I see a whole bunch of circular claims, but that is not the 'truth'. I see a whole bunch of rationalizations, but those contradict the truth. I see a whole bunch of misrepesentations, but that is not the truth.

From the misrepresentings of the history presented in Daniel vs the known historical record, I see lies, damn lies and ignorance.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Until then study up, sport.

AAAHAahahahahaaaahahahahahahahaaaaahhahhahahahahahaaa.... *gasps*

AAAHAahahahahaaaahahahahahahahaaaaahhahhahahahahahaaa.... *gasps*

AAAHAahahahahaaaahahahahahahahaaaaahhahhahahahahahaaa.... *gasps*

ROFLMAO... oh... thank you so much... lol... just, just... wow...

That was really funny. The guy who's never once cracked open a book on his religion... the guy who'd fail philosophy 101... tells me to study up.

Gold.

[Biker]

Still don't see any evidence against the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?

Biker

[bernee51]

Still don't see any evidence against the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?

Biker

Thats OK - because it is balanced by the lack of evidence for it.

Can you give me any evidence against my celestial teapot orbiting between earth and Mars?

[McCulloch]

Still don't see any evidence against the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?

A human becoming dead and then rising up without any human intervention is an unlikely event. It does not happen very often. In fact, there are no validated instances of it happening (depending on your definition of dead). Therefore, the burden of proof is on the ones who make the claim that such an event really did happen. This principle works for any kind of unlikely event such as "I have just performed cold fusion", "My brother can communicate to fish telepathically", "I just won the lottery", "God created the Moon on the same day as he created the Sun, for the purpose of being a light at night time".

Each of these claims is unlikely. If I were to make any of them, I would be expected to back them up with evidence for anyone to take me seriously. If all I did was to point at the alleged lack of evidence against any of these claims, I would be justifiably ignored by reasonable people.

[Biker]

Still don't see any evidence against the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?

A human becoming dead and then rising up without any human intervention is an unlikely event. It does not happen very often. In fact, there are no validated instances of it happening (depending on your definition of dead). Therefore, the burden of proof is on the ones who make the claim that such an event really did happen. This principle works for any kind of unlikely event such as "I have just performed cold fusion", "My brother can communicate to fish telepathically", "I just won the lottery", "God created the Moon on the same day as he created the Sun, for the purpose of being a light at night time".

Each of these claims is unlikely. If I were to make any of them, I would be expected to back them up with evidence for anyone to take me seriously. If all I did was to point at the alleged lack of evidence against any of these claims, I would be justifiably ignored by reasonable people.

Been wondering where have you been? Well, I would tend to agree with you except there are some really compelling differences between your examples and the historical facts of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. One is the foretelling of the events hundreds of years in advance. But since it is so "unlikely" as you say, it should be a simple matter for you to give hard evidence to refute it. I think reasonable people accept the historical facts, of the resurrection.

Biker

[Goat]

Still don't see any evidence against the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?

Biker

I don't see any evidence that the bible stories about the ressurection are anything but stories either.

In absense of any evidence FOR such an extrodinary claim to not only happen, but even be possible, I will say that , in this case, the absense of evidence FOR is evidence against.

[Goat]

Still don't see any evidence against the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?

A human becoming dead and then rising up without any human intervention is an unlikely event. It does not happen very often. In fact, there are no validated instances of it happening (depending on your definition of dead). Therefore, the burden of proof is on the ones who make the claim that such an event really did happen. This principle works for any kind of unlikely event such as "I have just performed cold fusion", "My brother can communicate to fish telepathically", "I just won the lottery", "God created the Moon on the same day as he created the Sun, for the purpose of being a light at night time".

Each of these claims is unlikely. If I were to make any of them, I would be expected to back them up with evidence for anyone to take me seriously. If all I did was to point at the alleged lack of evidence against any of these claims, I would be justifiably ignored by reasonable people.

Been wondering where have you been? Well, I would tend to agree with you except there are some really compelling differences between your examples and the historical facts of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. One is the foretelling of the events hundreds of years in advance. But since it is so "unlikely" as you say, it should be a simple matter for you to give hard evidence to refute it. I think reasonable people accept the historical facts, of the resurrection.

Biker

What 'historical fact'? Where is the beef?

[Biker]

Still don't see any evidence against the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?

Biker

I don't see any evidence that the bible stories about the ressurection are anything but stories either.

In absense of any evidence FOR such an extrodinary claim to not only happen, but even be possible, I will say that , in this case, the absense of evidence FOR is evidence against.

the absence of evidence FOR is evidence against.

To make that statement is to have one's head in the proverbial sand of denial. The ancient historical documents are out there, they are what they are. Refute em if you can. I don't think you can!
And on a lighter note, where have you been lately? Your post totals are down?

Biker

[McCulloch]

Still don't see any evidence against the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?

A human becoming dead and then rising up without any human intervention is an unlikely event. It does not happen very often. In fact, there are no validated instances of it happening (depending on your definition of dead). Therefore, the burden of proof is on the ones who make the claim that such an event really did happen. This principle works for any kind of unlikely event such as "I have just performed cold fusion", "My brother can communicate to fish telepathically", "I just won the lottery", "God created the Moon on the same day as he created the Sun, for the purpose of being a light at night time".

Each of these claims is unlikely. If I were to make any of them, I would be expected to back them up with evidence for anyone to take me seriously. If all I did was to point at the alleged lack of evidence against any of these claims, I would be justifiably ignored by reasonable people.

Well, I would tend to agree with you except there are some really compelling differences between your examples and the historical facts of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. One is the foretelling of the events hundreds of years in advance.

I have stated before why the argument of fulfilled prophesy is not compelling. Perhaps we should reopen the debate about Messianic Prophesies Fri Nov. 20, 2006 - Mon Nov. 30, 2006 that consisted mainly of goat, Easyrider, Metacrock and einstein, with additional appearances by AB, Eliyahu, Lotan, MrWhy, kal-el, Madeline, ManBearPig and Cathar1950.
However, you say one is the foretelling, what else do you have?

But since it is so "unlikely" as you say, it should be a simple matter for you to give hard evidence to refute it.

Why is that? I could say that the myth about the animals miraculously speaking in human languages during the nativity is an unlikely event, yet I know of no one who could provide hard evidence to refute it. Yesterday, I put my elbow in my ear. Can you provide hard evidence to refute that?

I think reasonable people accept the historical facts, of the resurrection.

I think that reasonable people differentiate between probable historical facts supported by evidence and the claim of the resurrection of God made human.