Atheist Circular Reasoning

Originally posted by @thinkofone
C'mon. Romans has been claiming that there is " 'overwhelming' evidence of the Resurrection of Christ". On page 2 of this thread the "evidence" he presented is a cut-and-paste of a few attorneys who purportedly claim to believe the evidence they found. Romans' "evidence" is BASED on the "fallacy of virtue". For you to invoke "fallacy of virtue" in response to someone who isn't swayed by the "virtue" of one of the attorneys is laughable.

Why would you want to follow the teachings of Christ if he was just another man like yourself and if he didn't demonstrate his divinity by rising from the dead? The joke is on you.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
C'mon. Romans has been claiming that there is " 'overwhelming' evidence of the Resurrection of Christ". On page 2 of this thread the "evidence" he presented is a cut-and-paste of a few attorneys who purportedly claim to believe the evidence they found. Romans' "evidence" is BASED on the "fallacy of virtue". For you to invoke "fallacy of virtue" in response to someone who isn't swayed by the "virtue" of one of the attorneys is laughable.

What Romans did or didn't claim is completely irrelevant. You denied the truth of a claim simply because it came from the lips of an attorney, whom you said--based solely on his or her profession--can't be trusted. That is text book fallacy.

Originally posted by @moonbus
I don't see why any atheist has to prove that God does not exist. The burden of proof is entirely on those who make the claim that God does exist and that Jesus was Him incarnate, just as the burden of proof is on those who claim to have been abducted by aliens to prove that aliens exist. If Christians are willing to accept on faith tha ...[text shortened]... at God exists or that Jesus was God in the flesh. It's just evidence that some people are weird.

Did I say that any atheist has to prove that God exists?
Please read over what I wrote .. thank you.
Im pretty sure that nobody has hard evidence on the existence of God.

The just live by faith.
Clearly Christians dont understand what that means.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
What Romans did or didn't claim is completely irrelevant. You denied the truth of a claim simply because it came from the lips of an attorney, whom you said can't be trusted. That is text book fallacy.

Seriously? One thing you seem to fail to realize is that it was stellspalfie who "denied the truth of a claim simply because it came from the lips of an attorney". Not me.

Another thing you also still seem to fail to realize is that the "claim" in question is rooted in the very same "text book fallacy" - namely the "fallacy of virtue".

Take the time to actually think about it. Or do you need me to spell it out in detail for you?

Here's a big clue: Romans posited "the truth of a claim simply because it came from the lips of an attorney".

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Seriously? One thing you seem to fail to realize is that it was stellspalfie who "denied the truth of a claim simply because it came from the lips of an attorney". Not me.

Another thing you also still seem to fail to realize is that the "claim" in question is rooted in the very same "text book fallacy" - namely the "fallacy of virtue".

Take the ti ...[text shortened]... clue: Romans posited "the truth of a claim simply because it came from the lips of an attorney".

Oh. Well sorry. Ok whomever denied the truth of the attorney's claim, based on the fact that the person is an attorney--committed a fallacy. That's the point. Whether Roman did or did not commit a fallacy... is still irrelevant to that point. If Roman explicitly claimed that a statement is a fact just because an attorney said it--then yes, Roman also committed a fallacy. But that still doesn't negate my observation which you had some problem with. Your counter to my statement is basically, "So-and-so didn't commit a fallacy, because Roman committed one first," which is also a fallacy. LOL we're gettin' deep! Take care. I mean no harm.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
C'mon. After your claim of having "overwhelming evidence", GoaD asked you to "overwhelm" him. That was the response YOU chose. Evidently you're now inexplicably claiming that it wasn't meant to be "evidence" at all even though that's what you said you had and that's what GoaD asked for. Can anyone blame him for feeling UNDERwhelmed?

If you actually h ...[text shortened]... e that you've found most convincing and explain the reason that you found each piece convincing.

I’ve provided a link numerous times that gives a 30,000-foot view of *some* of the evidence. If people can’t be bothered to click on a link, why should I be bothered to write the evidence out?

People could have reviewed the linked article and come back with what they found faulty with the evidence. No one did. Apparently their minds are made up and closed. Why would I waste my time?

Originally posted by @moonbus
https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/the-case-for-christ.htm

I read the linked page. There wasn't any evidence there. Just the claim that someone got converted after considering some evidence or other.

Suppose someone claimed he had been abducted by aliens and subjected to a medical examination on a spaceship. Would you believe that, on someone's say-s ...[text shortened]... somebody's say-so that that really happened, because it's weirder than being abducted by aliens.

That’s not the link to the evidence - that was a link demonstrating that people who are experts in reviewing evidence found the evidence for Christ’s Resurrection to be overwhelming. Do you not understand the difference?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Well said.

When someone claims to have overwhelming evidence for something it's rather disappointing to discover they have diddly squat.

I’ve provided a link to an article that gives a 30,000-foot view of the evidence numerous times. Do you want me to provide the link again?

Originally posted by @rajk999
Did I say that any atheist has to prove that God exists?
Please read over what I wrote .. thank you.
Im pretty sure that nobody has hard evidence on the existence of God.

The just live by faith.
Clearly Christians dont understand what that means.

Evidence is not the same as proof. Even Paul in Romans identifies faith as being supported by something tangible.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
Oh. Well sorry. Ok whomever denied the truth of the attorney's claim, based on the fact that the person is an attorney--committed a fallacy. That's the point. Whether Roman did or did not commit a fallacy... is still irrelevant to that point. If Roman explicitly claimed that a statement is a fact just because an attorney said it--then yes, Roman als ...[text shortened]... itted one first," which is also a fallacy. LOL we're gettin' deep! Take care. I mean no harm.

Clearly you need it spelled out in detail.

The point isn't that "So-and-so didn't commit a fallacy, because Roman committed one first". The point is that since Romans posited "the truth of a claim simply because it came from the lips of an attorney", it is perfectly valid to attack the truth of that claim on that very basis. stellspalfie was attacking the BASIS of Romans' claim. Understand now?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Seriously? One thing you seem to fail to realize is that it was stellspalfie who "denied the truth of a claim simply because it came from the lips of an attorney". Not me.

Another thing you also still seem to fail to realize is that the "claim" in question is rooted in the very same "text book fallacy" - namely the "fallacy of virtue".

Take the ti ...[text shortened]... clue: Romans posited "the truth of a claim simply because it came from the lips of an attorney".

Wrong. I presented that article as proof that I was not the only one who found the evidence overwhelming and that three people who are experts at evaluating evidence did so also.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Wrong. I presented that article as proof that I was not the only one who found the evidence overwhelming and that three people who are experts at evaluating evidence did so also.

stellspalfie was responding to a later post of yours which only cited Luckhoo.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Clearly you need it spelled out in detail.

The point isn't that "So-and-so didn't commit a fallacy, because Roman committed one first". The point is that since Romans posited "the truth of a claim simply because it came from the lips of an attorney", it is perfectly valid to attack the truth of that claim on that very basis. stellspalfie was attacking the BASIS of Romans' claim. Understand now?

<<The point is that since Romans posited "the truth of a claim simply because it came from the lips of an attorney",>>

That’s not at all what I did. I provided the quote from Sir Lionel Luckhoo to demonstrate that not only I found the evidence for Christ’s Resurrection to be overwhelming, but experts in reviewing evidence did as well.

Originally posted by @romans1009
<<The point is that since Romans posited "the truth of a claim simply because it came from the lips of an attorney",>>

That’s not at all what I did. I provided the quote from Sir Lionel Luckhoo to demonstrate that not only I found the evidence for Christ’s Resurrection to be overwhelming, but experts in reviewing evidence did as well.

Which amounts to the same thing: The evidence should be believed because an attorney - who is an "expert in reviewing evidence" - believes the evidence.

Your claim that it's "not at all what [you] did" is ludicrous.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Which amounts to the same thing: The evidence should be believed because an attorney - who is an "expert in reviewing evidence" - believes the evidence.

Your claim that it's "not at all what [you] did" is ludicrous.

No, it doesn’t amount to the same thing.

Yes, I find the evidence to be overwhelming. When someone mocked me for saying that, I showed how an expert in reviewing evidence felt the same way (along with two other experts.)

That’s not the same as saying everyone should believe the evidence because they and I believe it. It’s to refute the idea that the evidence being overwhelming is worthy of mocking.