Five reasons to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead

[fezzyfestoon]

Not to take away from the deluge of deep conversation discussing this idiotic concept preceding my terse commentary, but retroactive history explained through a particular perspective (especially one so consistently at odds with real science) is almost exclusively devoid of legitimate scientific study. That's not even taking into account the absolute, distinctly absurd proposition that resurrection is a serious scientific or historic topic of academic conversation. I truly hate the intrusion on science perpetrated by a seemingly increasingly active movement of Christian revisionist history...and science. And even further on top of that, this doesn't address the pile of logical fallacies this Christian revisionist "science" leans on exclusively. If this were real science, it would be tossed out without even being considered because its distinct lack of science.

[fezzyfestoon]

Not to take away from the deluge of deep conversation discussing this idiotic concept preceding my terse commentary, but retroactive history explained through a particular perspective (especially one so consistently at odds with real science) is almost exclusively devoid of legitimate scientific study. That's not even taking into account the absolute, distinctly absurd proposition that resurrection is a serious scientific or historic topic of academic conversation. I truly hate the intrusion on science perpetrated by a seemingly increasingly active movement of Christian revisionist history...and science. And even further on top of that, this doesn't address the pile of logical fallacies this Christian revisionist "science" leans on exclusively. If this were real science, it would be tossed out without even being considered because its distinct lack of science.

So history shouldn't deal with things that can't be scientifically proven?

It shouldn't deal with things that have absolutely no standing in any scientific theory, study, or realistic expansion of any number of many, many legitimate scientific concepts. The problem isn't even as much rooted in seriously considering something nonsensical as it is that nonsense having accomplished nothing of scientific note to achieve its standing as something that deserves to be discussed. If there's any real scientific meat to this, it would be worth at least acknowledging if just for the wonder of it. But there is no science to it, it's all solely rooted in the distinct absence of any science at all in the "scientific" discussion of it.

[fezzyfestoon]

I think in particular reference to the completely unfounded and unrealistic suggestion of resurrection being historically accurate and scientifically possible, the particularly weak religious and sociological defense absolutely disqualifies it from any serious consideration at all, yes. Someday we may have a conversation about, if there's any science or history at all on its side. As of now however, there's literally not a single reason to acknowledge its merit beyond superstition and fantasy.

[fezzyfestoon]

Exactly, the sociological aspect is the only significant aspect of the conversation. And a sociological defense of fact is garbage science. You absolutely cannot trust consensus (especially not the consensus of maybe a few hundred arguably existent group of people) to defend scientific fact. Discuss it all you want as some sort of philosophical fantasy, but it's nothing more than that. Adding the testimony of a few imaginary or at least highly unreliable people from several centuries ago to an argument lends it absolutely no credence in science or history. I don't care how legitimate anyone thinks religion is or how trustworthy the believe the word of their less-than-qualified "historians" is who use the word of a fictional book retranslated countless times as a historically accurate source of information, it's NOT science or history. It's offensive to have garbage science and horrifically weak history elevated to the level of study that has earned its place beyond just being popular. It's not a legitimate argument, no matter the vast scale of the majority, to claim popularity as a significant reason to accept a concept as scientifically viable. It's deeply offensive to be told that while no other scientific theory can be legitimately explained by popularity or the word of a work of fiction, it's unacceptable not to make an exception for religion. Religion likes to think of itself as so overarching and undeniable that it has solid footing in society, science, philosophy, and history just because so many people agree with it. There's no merit beyond the fallacious appeal to authority and majority. That's a slap in the face of real science and completely out of line.

[fezzyfestoon]

I'm not entirely sure the terms of the argument at hand are the same for you as they are for me. In fact, I'd be surprised if they were.

That seems to be our endpoint quite often. And it's a realistic one. Truths that you take as infallible are nonsense to me because I don't have "faith". So when that very faith is the foundation of an attempt to expand the conversation of religious texts into science and history, I simply laugh and move on to reality.

[fezzyfestoon]

I'm not entirely sure the terms of the argument at hand are the same for you as they are for me. In fact, I'd be surprised if they were.

That seems to be our endpoint quite often.

Sad but true.

It's just a fact of life for me that Christians will never see things for the way they can factually be defined as being. I don't take religion seriously in part because they don't take science or history seriously. If there was a legitimate defense consistent with any similar nonreligious effort of the things they were trying to defend, it would just be a different perspective rather than an infuriating intrusion on the things I do take seriously.

[fezzyfestoon]

Exactly