Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Coito ergo sum]

But what is the origin of that legitimacy? The origin of biblical (Old Testament) legitimacy is (alleged to be) the actual miraculous/divine events that occurred to specified individuals like, for example, Moses and the Israelites. These experiences have been written down and copied, but the claims made regarding events that occurred were experienced by actual people (or so it's claimed) who lived through the actual events. In the case of Jesus, the Gospels come down directly from those (in some cases) who actually experienced the events written of. They claim to have been there and witnessed the events.

Personal testimony is absolutely "evidence," even in court, although the veracity of testimonial evidence is always open to challenge. But the burden of proof when it comes to testimonial evidence is almost always on the one who is challenging the veracity of the testimony, which means that if one disbelieves what Paul said about the events of Jesus' life that he himself witnessed, it's up to the skeptic to provide evidence that the testimony is false or incorrect.

In court, the statement by the writer of Exodus quoting Moses would be inadmissible hearsay, within hearsay, within hearsay. In order for the book of Exodus to be evidence in court you'd have to have someone to authenticate it, and there is nobody around who can do that, and unless the writer were able to take the stand to be cross-examined, you'd have to exclude it as inadmissible hearsay. Even if parts of it were admissible because we dug the writer up and resurrected him to put him on the stand, you couldn't offer it to prove anything that Moses said, because that would be hearsay, and you'd have to find Moses, dig him up, and put him on the stand.

Also, "eyewitness testimony" of miracles is unreliable. People see lights in a hospital and they say "I saw an Angel," or they see something they can't explain and they attribute it to god. They didn't see an angel or god do anything. They saw a light that they CLAIM was an angel, and they saw an unexplained phenomenon that they arbitrarily attribute to a given deity.

So it's not as if it's Paul saying "Jesus is the Son of God and you must believe me because I say it is so" that would make it the ipse dixit fallacy that CES writes of. Instead, it's Paul saying "Here's what I witnessed during the end of the life of Jesus, and here's what he told me."

No. It's writer X who wrote down what he claims Paul wrote. Hearsay within hearsay.

Paul also didn't write about what Jesus told HIM, because Paul never claimed to have met Jesus or to have ever talked to Jesus.

The Bible is offered ipse dixit by people who say "Here is the word of God, it's true because God says it is true." That is ipse dixit by definition. The Words are claimed to be divine, and the writers merely pens in the hand of the deity.

Skeptics are free to discount this evidence, but they take up the burden of proving it to be false when they do so.

No. If someone wants to claim the Bible is true, they have to provide evidence that it's true. An old claim repeated is not evidence of itself.

What you and CES are making is in essence a "poisoning the well"

Jesus tap-dancing Christ. No, it isn't. Dude, you just sling names of fallacies out there, and you obviously have no idea what they mean. FFS.

argument or perhaps an argument from incredulity. You both discount the first-person claims

We don't have the first person claims. We have subsequent reportage of first person claims. Any writing by Paul himself is long since gone, and what we have translations of copies of prior copies. A Chinese Whispers of Biblical proportions, if you will.

made merely because they have been documented and repeated down through history, but this is no more credible than saying that all of Dawkins' claims are false merely because you did not hear them from his mouth.

Well, you're the one who brought up courtroom evidence. Yes, if someone else tries to testify to what Dawkins said, we discount it as hearsay because Dawkins isn't there to say what he thinks and be cross-examined.

However, the difference is that there is evidence for what Dawkins says about evolution, which is repeatable and verifiable. We don't need Dawkins. Someone else can testify and present the evidence. We don't need a guy to say "Dawkins said X." Someone else can say X, and prove it.

More is required of the skeptic who discounts the testimony of those who claim to have witnessed miraculous or divine events than mere incredulity if their skepticism is not itself to be discounted as unsubstantiated.

Crock of shit.

This is what you're saying:

1. Person X makes a statement without evidence;
2. That statement is written down, translated, copied over and over, and the originals and early versions are lost.
3. Hundreds of years go by.
4. Person Y says "there isn't evidence for the claims made by the supposed person X."
5. Seth thinks that Person Y has to provide evidence for the claim that there isn't evidence for person X's claim, or we have to dismiss Person Y's claim that there is no evidence of person X's claim.

A more wretched hive of sophistry and villainy would be hard to find, Seth. Your argument is either monumentally stupid, or it's one of your "I really don't believe it, I'm just adopting a position for shits and giggles" things. The problem with it being the latter is that it is so silly that it's hard to imagine that you'd adopt it as a viable argument to even play with.

[Animavore]

I read a story recently about an atheist that had a NDE. Do you know what she said? She realised that this is the only life we have, that death is an end, that she should make more use of our lives. In other words, her NDE just happened to confirm what she already believed.
NDEs are another example of piss-poor 'evidence'.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I read a story recently about an atheist that had a NDE. Do you know what she said? She realised that this is the only life we have, that death is an end, that she should make more use of our lives. In other words, her NDE just happened to confirm what she already believed.
NDEs are another example of piss-poor 'evidence'.

My thoughts after such events have always been along the lines of "Well, that sucked!"

[Animavore]

I read a story recently about an atheist that had a NDE. Do you know what she said? She realised that this is the only life we have, that death is an end, that she should make more use of our lives. In other words, her NDE just happened to confirm what she already believed.
NDEs are another example of piss-poor 'evidence'.

My thoughts after such events have always been along the lines of "Well, that sucked!"

I was talking to a guy a few months ago in the pub. He had a massive heart attack. He was a believer before the heart attack. He told me that when he 'went under' he realised there was nothing. He's now an atheist. Explain that away using the same logic theists use to say NDEs are 'evidence'.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I read a story recently about an atheist that had a NDE. Do you know what she said? She realised that this is the only life we have, that death is an end, that she should make more use of our lives. In other words, her NDE just happened to confirm what she already believed.
NDEs are another example of piss-poor 'evidence'.

My thoughts after such events have always been along the lines of "Well, that sucked!"

I was talking to a guy a few months ago in the pub. He had a massive heart attack. He was a believer before the heart attack. He told me that when he 'went under' he realised there was nothing. He's now an atheist. Explain that away using the same logic theists use to say NDEs are 'evidence'.

Sorry, but using logic on a believer is like putting funny clothes on a pug.

[Animavore]

I read a story recently about an atheist that had a NDE. Do you know what she said? She realised that this is the only life we have, that death is an end, that she should make more use of our lives. In other words, her NDE just happened to confirm what she already believed.
NDEs are another example of piss-poor 'evidence'.

My thoughts after such events have always been along the lines of "Well, that sucked!"

I was talking to a guy a few months ago in the pub. He had a massive heart attack. He was a believer before the heart attack. He told me that when he 'went under' he realised there was nothing. He's now an atheist. Explain that away using the same logic theists use to say NDEs are 'evidence'.

Sorry, but using logic on a believer is like putting funny clothes on a pug.

At least you can have sex with pugs

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I read a story recently about an atheist that had a NDE. Do you know what she said? She realised that this is the only life we have, that death is an end, that she should make more use of our lives. In other words, her NDE just happened to confirm what she already believed.
NDEs are another example of piss-poor 'evidence'.

My thoughts after such events have always been along the lines of "Well, that sucked!"

I was talking to a guy a few months ago in the pub. He had a massive heart attack. He was a believer before the heart attack. He told me that when he 'went under' he realised there was nothing. He's now an atheist. Explain that away using the same logic theists use to say NDEs are 'evidence'.

Sorry, but using logic on a believer is like putting funny clothes on a pug.

At least you can have sex with pugs

Rocky Balboa, maybe.

[Animavore]

My thoughts after such events have always been along the lines of "Well, that sucked!"

I was talking to a guy a few months ago in the pub. He had a massive heart attack. He was a believer before the heart attack. He told me that when he 'went under' he realised there was nothing. He's now an atheist. Explain that away using the same logic theists use to say NDEs are 'evidence'.

Sorry, but using logic on a believer is like putting funny clothes on a pug.

At least you can have sex with pugs

Rocky Balboa, maybe.

Did you ever feel like you're an alien looking down on this planet thinking What the fuck ?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Constantly. Because I am.

[Coito ergo sum]

I read a story recently about an atheist that had a NDE. Do you know what she said? She realised that this is the only life we have, that death is an end, that she should make more use of our lives. In other words, her NDE just happened to confirm what she already believed.
NDEs are another example of piss-poor 'evidence'.

My thoughts after such events have always been along the lines of "Well, that sucked!"

I was talking to a guy a few months ago in the pub. He had a massive heart attack. He was a believer before the heart attack. He told me that when he 'went under' he realised there was nothing. He's now an atheist. Explain that away using the same logic theists use to say NDEs are 'evidence'.

The closest I came was when I had a wisdom tooth extraction and they put me under. I was sitting there answering some inane question from the oral surgeon about where I went to college or something, and the very next thing I perceived, without the slightest passage of time, was an hour later and I was looking at the pretty dental assistant.

That seems to me to makes sense in terms of what death will be like. No perception.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That seems to me to makes sense in terms of what death will be like. No perception.

Same here. I've lost up to a month at a time due to injuries and that time just wasn't there. One moment I'm looking an inbound smoke trail and thinking "FUCK!" and the next I'm in a nice clean hospital room thousands of miles away. (They kept me under so I wouldn't need pain meds. Good thing, too.)

[Coito ergo sum]

That seems to me to makes sense in terms of what death will be like. No perception.

Same here. I've lost up to a month at a time due to injuries and that time just wasn't there. One moment I'm looking an inbound smoke trail and thinking "FUCK!" and the next I'm in a nice clean hospital room thousands of miles away. (They kept me under so I wouldn't need pain meds. Good thing, too.)

Well, that makes my wisdom tooth extraction look like a paper cut, but I suppose it does better illustrate the point.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That seems to me to makes sense in terms of what death will be like. No perception.

Same here. I've lost up to a month at a time due to injuries and that time just wasn't there. One moment I'm looking an inbound smoke trail and thinking "FUCK!" and the next I'm in a nice clean hospital room thousands of miles away. (They kept me under so I wouldn't need pain meds. Good thing, too.)

Well, that makes my wisdom tooth extraction look like a paper cut, but I suppose it does better illustrate the point.

I've been unconscious for over a week on at least three occasions. (Twice I couldn't reconcile dates later on, but never figured out where the time went.) I've never had an Experience, perhaps because I wasn't expecting one.

[Animavore]

I read a story recently about an atheist that had a NDE. Do you know what she said? She realised that this is the only life we have, that death is an end, that she should make more use of our lives. In other words, her NDE just happened to confirm what she already believed.
NDEs are another example of piss-poor 'evidence'.

My thoughts after such events have always been along the lines of "Well, that sucked!"

I was talking to a guy a few months ago in the pub. He had a massive heart attack. He was a believer before the heart attack. He told me that when he 'went under' he realised there was nothing. He's now an atheist. Explain that away using the same logic theists use to say NDEs are 'evidence'.

The closest I came was when I had a wisdom tooth extraction and they put me under. I was sitting there answering some inane question from the oral surgeon about where I went to college or something, and the very next thing I perceived, without the slightest passage of time, was an hour later and I was looking at the pretty dental assistant.

That seems to me to makes sense in terms of what death will be like. No perception.

On the exact same programme with the atheist NDE a neurologist measured people's brain activity while they were 'under'. The MRI showed no activity what-so-ever. The neurologist concluded that this is what death is like
No activity = no conscientious = no you.

[Seth]

the Gospels come down directly from those (in some cases) who actually experienced the events written of. They claim to have been there and witnessed the events.

No, they don't. Luke explicitly writes that he is relying on the reports of others for his rendition of the life of Jesus. [Luke 1:1–4]. Luke's gospel, along with those of Matthew and Mark, also differs significantly from that of John's, who some claim to be "the beloved apostle" Jesu. Biblical historians, however, have so far been unable to establish a generally accepted covenance indicating that John, the apostle, is in fact the John who wrote that gospel.

Reaching back to the veracity of the old testament, I am sceptical that a reliable witness account can be found for, say, god creating everything there is in six days, making Adam out of mud, fashioning Eve from a rib of Adam, and driving both of them out of paradise because they have eaten from the "tree of knowledge". Evolutionary theory and astrophysics seem to rest on better evidentiary foundations than the bible to base our view of life and the universe.

And you're entitled to be skeptical. But the point remains that there IS evidence pointing towards the facts claimed by the New Testament and the Old Testament, however slight. On the other hand, the absence of evidence (as in the absence of scientific or "Biblical historian" evidence) is not evidence of absence, in fact it's not evidence of anything.

So, where does the preponderance of the evidence as to the existence of God lie at the moment? With science, or with religion?