User talk:Conservative/ResurrectionRequest

From Conservapedia

You are really wondering why atheists aren't denying the resurection of christ? Might the reason be the same why most of them don't deny the possibility of some kind of god, even tho they think it's highly unlikely. There just isn't a way to argue against 2000 year old poorly documented story. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those that claim it did happen. Im really really suprised if you get some atheist even to try. WillM 18:03, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I think the idea is that Christian apologists believe the story is documented, extremely well so; hence they have evidence, and they defy atheists to find plausible reason to reject this evidence. Unfortunately time has a way of making even the best documented story ambiguous and vulnerable to alteration... Feebasfactor 19:46, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Also, Conservative: I think this is a neat idea and it needs to be put somewhere visible, but are you sure all the discussion in the previous page was finished before you archived it? Feebasfactor 19:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I looked at the last few items and it appeared as if the issues were settled or at least reasonably settled. Conservative 20:13, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Consider the cults currently existing, or some of the paranormal things people claim to see and do, people would testify that there are happening the most bizarre things right here in this time. Now imagine that there was a "miracle" somewhere in south africa, we have some cult of lets say 200 people who say that their personal savior and god has just died and resurected. They could have even an death certificate and videos of people testifying that it really happened. All that documentation, would you be convinced? Now some one comes and tells you that there was another incident, very similar to this one but it happened 2000 years ago, it has very little documentation compared to this and even the most recent of those documentations where written tens if not even hundreds of years after the actual incident by people who never actually witnessed it. Think how hard it would be to actually prove or disaprove that first incident with all the documentation presented, and could anyone seriously claim that the later one could be proven or disaproven beyon reosonable doubt? WillM 20:34, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Conservative - why do you care? I mean in the same way that atheist/agnostics writing a book wouldn't do anything to convince you that a god does or doesn't exist - you asking them to write a book won't do anything to convince them that a god does or doesn't exist. (Not to mention the fact that an open request as you mentioned above would be so bombastic that it would practically be asking for vandalism)--IDuan 23:08, 23 September 2007 (EDT)