This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by achromat666

T. stillson,

To bring my point home consider the following (I ask the moderators to indulge me as this may start out sounding off topic):

Jack the Ripper is the common name for an unidentified serial killer who committed murders in and around Whitechapel in London 1888. We have records to support this, including police correspondence, death records of the victims, and in depth research from multiple sources.

Recently, a book was published on the subject: The Fox and The Flies: The World of Joseph Silver, Racketeer and Psychopath. In it the authors points to this man as Jack the ripper based on his activity and location around the time of the murders.

But despite the evidence he presents, there is still high skepticism as to whether or not this is in fact the fabled killer. Other authors have presented their evidence and have similar results with those that accept their claims and many others that don't. It is entirely likely we will never learn Jack's real identity.

So, with a person that does exists we can have experts investigate the matter centuries after and still come up with inconclusive information, even with documentation from the time.

You present your case as if you have already found all the answers, present threadbare hearsay information that lacks even the validity of the author of the book I cited above and somehow expect us to arbitrarily accept these findings as sufficient evidence to accept that both Christ lived and possessed all the traits attributed to him in the NT.

You don't half even the benefit of half of the evidence presented by the author above, but somehow expect to have this position taken seriously. Do you understand the difference between peer reviewed evidence and vague hearsay?

Tue, 22 May 2012 17:33:24 UTC | #942882