Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That was not my point, but the answer is that there are multiple lines of evidence for the resurrection.

There are?

Again that is a literally tool, the author is using symbolic language

For example

Luke 6:41-42

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Obviously I don’t believe that people used to have planks in their eyes / nor I belive that the bible literally teaches that, the author is clearly using symbolic language.

The zombie invasion of Jerusalem is described in the Gospels the same way it describes purported factual events.

If I had to guess, I'd say that you've decided it's "symbolic language" because the events described are ridiculous. Right?

The same way you decide in your daily life with in conversation

Did the author claim it to be real? Or was he using literally tool?............. if your friend tells you that he is “so hungry that he could eat a horse” how can you tell if its literally true or if he is just using an expression, ?

All I am saying is that the gospels deserve the benefit of the doubt,

Which version?

The 4 accounts disagree with each other, so which one gets the benefit of the doubt?

If the author claims that something is real, then we must trust him, unless proven otherwise. (you do the same thign with josephus, tacitus and other historians from that period)

No, I really don't.

But if you give Josephus weight, consider this:

After he wrote Chronicles (and I'm not talking about the later forgery, the Testimonium Flavianum, but the bit where he refers to "James, brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ"), Josephus fought in a war to get Emperor Vespasian recognized as the Jewish messiah.

Nobody would die for a lie, so we can conclude this person who was very familiar with Jesus's life considered it not compelling enough to believe Jesus's messiah claims, right?

 

[Sheldon]

Do you always have this paranoid and extreme skepticism? or you only apply high standards of skepticism only with stuff that contradict your own particular view?

Are all unsubstantiated claims from unknown authors that bodies disappeared, evidence for divine miracles?

People who make unevidenced assumptions for only their own favourite miracles, shouldn't throw accusations of bias.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes and flat earthier think that their model of the universe is better than yours…………so what? we all have an independent mind and we might disagree on many issues, I personally have seen the arguments for Christianity more compelling that then arguments for other religions.

The shape of the earth is an objective fact, whereas your subjective opinion is not.

 

[Sheldon]

there are multiple lines of evidence for the resurrection.

There is no objective evidence at all, only second or even third hand hearsay from unknown authors. There isn't even any objective evidence that a resurrection is even possible.

the gospels deserve the benefit of the doubt,

No they don't, if they are of divine origin the opposite is true, they should stand up to any human scrutiny.

If the author claims that something is real, then we must trust him, unless proven otherwise.

Ah fair enough, you're claiming Harry Potter is real, I'm dubious.

 

[Sheldon]

You cannot speak for all atheists.

Nor can you, and yet you did.

 

[leroy]

1. You don't have any sources. only second or third hand hearsay from unknown authors.
2. Even IF you could establish an empty tomb, as an historical fact, that would not remotely evidence anything supernatural.

Why on earth would it?

So should we reject all historical documents that where written by "third hand" ? Or should we reject only those sources that contradict your view?

 

[leroy]

. There isn't even any objective evidence that a resurrection is even possible.

Again how can anyone know if you are not willing to explain what you mean by evidence.

No they don't, if they are of divine origin the opposite is true, they should stand up to any human scrutiny.

I provided reasons for why the gospels deserve the benefit of the doubt, why dobt you refute those arguments?

Ah fair enough, you're claiming Harry Potter is real, I'm dubious.

Build your case.

If you think that the gospels are science ficción (like Harry Potter) then develope your argument

 

[KWED]

That is easy, we have multiple early documents that claim that a resurrection happened, (the earliest source dates to within 2 or 3 years after the crusifixtion.

This is news to me (and most historians, I's guess). I thought the only sources were the gospels, which were anonymous and written many tears after the events, by people who were not eye-witmessess.
So, what are these multiple, contemporary, reliable sources?

This is too early for any myth or legend to flourish

But we aren't talking about a myth flourishing, but starting. That would be like saying that a rumour about someone must be true if only one person has repeated it - which is obvious nonsense.

it´s a fact that some early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection,

No. It's a fact that some people claimed that the resurrection happened. We do not know if anyone saw anything. It might all be fiction. The fact that there is zero corroborative evidence for an impossible event, outside of texts whose purpose is to promote that impossible event suggest that it is fiction.
If you want to claim that it actually happened you need something more than people who want it to have happened saying that it happened.

 

[leroy]

We have no contemporary sources at all, this has been explained to you, and the bare unevidenced claim for a resurrection has no explanatory powers, only unevidenced assumption, you have yet to explain what you think explanatory scope means, even after being asked twice to explain it. Parsimony??? I have no idea what etc refers to either???

1 Paul is a contemporary source

2 should we reject all non contemporary sources or only those that contradict your view?

3 yes the resurrection has explanatory power. It exolains why early Christians where claiming that jesus rose from the dead.

4 explanatory scope refers to the number of things that the hypothesis explains , the resurrection explains the empty tomb , the belief in the resurrection, the sudden convertion of Paul, the rise of early christianity etc. (No other naturalistic alternative explains athus much)

 

[KWED]

Yeah, let's forget all about that because if Christians had to think about that they might lose faith.

As you must know, most Christians believe that the physical body of Jesus magically turned into a glorified physical body that is immortal and then it ascended up to heaven in the clouds and that same physical body will return to earth someday just the way it left (Acts 1:9-11).

Baha'is believe that Jesus died on the cross and His soul ascended to heaven at that time, and that is why the same Jesus can never return to earth as Christians believe He will, someday.

This short chapter explains what Baha'is believe about the resurrection.

23: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

 

[KWED]

Yes I have been told many times, but you haven’t provided any evidence for the authenticity of the fossils (stegosaurus in the museum) apart form testimonies.

No, it has been explained how we know that the fossils are authentic. You are just choosing to ignore that information.

Ironically, your position on dinosaur fossils means that you must reject all holy scriptures as evidence, leaving you with literally nothing to believe. Which is quite amusing.

 

[leroy]

This is news to me (and most historians, I's guess). I thought the only sources were the gospels, which were anonymous and written many tears after the events, by people who were not eye-witmessess.
So, what are these multiple, contemporary, reliable sources?

But we aren't talking about a myth flourishing, but starting. That would be like saying that a rumour about someone must be true if only one person has repeated it - which is obvious nonsense.

No. It's a fact that some people claimed that the resurrection happened. We do not know if anyone saw anything. It might all be fiction. The fact that there is zero corroborative evidence for an impossible event, outside of texts whose purpose is to promote that impossible event suggest that it is fiction.
If you want to claim that it actually happened you need something more than people who want it to have happened saying that it happened.

Note the red letters from your quote ,..... i can support those claims.

1 I can show that we have early for the resurrection sources that date within 2 or 3 years after jesus died

2 i can show that early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection

3 i can provide a source from an author that didn't "whant it to happen"


The question is
If I do that would that change anything? Would you atleast move a tinny step towards beliving in the resurrection?............or is it a case where it doesn't matter what the evidence is, i will never belive on the resurrection ?

 

[KWED]

Most of the verifiable historical things that are reported in the gospels happen to be true; this is why I trust the gospels as reliable historical documents.

Books like the Mabinogion, Norse Sagas, Iliad and Odyssey contain some historically and geographically accurate information. Do you therefore give them the benefit of the doubt about cyclops, dragons and ice giants?

This means that at the very least they deserve the benefit of the doubt with stuff that is impossible to verify.

No it does not. A person telling the truth about one thing doesn't mean they can't lie about something else. That is a crazy argument.

The zombie and the earthquake stuff is just a literally tool, nobody thinks (nor thought) that zombies literally appeared .

So the extraordinary events, stuff that seems highly unlikely, didn't actually happen. The accounts are just literary devices and not meant to be taken as actual events.
Yep, that seems reasonable.

 

[leroy]

No, it has been explained how we know that the fossils are authentic. You are just choosing to ignore that information.

Ironically, your position on dinosaur fossils means that you must reject all holy scriptures as evidence, leaving you with literally nothing to believe. Which is quite amusing.

Yes and all you have is because other people say so (testimonials)


So ether testimonials count as evidence (which means that the new testament would also count as evidence)

Or testimonials are not evidence (which means that there is no evidence for the autenticicity of those fossils)

Which one is it?

 

[KWED]

Why not?

Because they are merely unsupported claims.

I think perhaps you have misunderstood the meaning of "objective" as well as "evidence". Here, allow me to help...

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Fact: A thing that is known or proved to be true.
Evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (OED)

 

[leroy]

Books like the Mabinogion, Norse Sagas, Iliad and Odyssey contain some historically and geographically accurate information. Do you therefore give them the benefit of the doubt about cyclops, dragons and ice giants?

No it does not. A person telling the truth about one thing doesn't mean they can't lie about something else. That is a crazy argument.

So the extraordinary events, stuff that seems highly unlikely, didn't actually happen. The accounts are just literary devices and not meant to be taken as actual events.
Yep, that seems reasonable.

I am not too familiar with the illiad and odyssey but sure

1 if the author intended to report real historical events

2 and if the mayority of verifiable facts are true

The yes we should give the sutjor the benefit of the doubt.

Obviously i am talking about specific facts like the names of the high priests, the names of the political leaders, the descriptions of the towns and villages arround, etc.


This is not weird apologetic stuff, this is how historians treat historical documents, if the author is proven to be reliable in the things that can be verified, then the ajthor would have the benefit of the doubt.


..


Appart from miracles , do you have any other problem with the gospels (historically speacking)?.......if we change miracles for "events that where interpreted as miracles by stupid bronce age people" would you be ok with accepting the gospels as historical documents?

 

[leroy]

Because they are merely unsupported claims.

I think perhaps you have misunderstood the meaning of "objective" as well as "evidence". Here, allow me to help...

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Fact: A thing that is known or proved to be true.
Evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (OED)

Ok so what would you accept as evidence?

If someone trully rose from the dead 2000y ago , what evidence would you expect to have?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
1. You don't have any sources. only second or third hand hearsay from unknown authors.
2. Even IF you could establish an empty tomb, as an historical fact, that would not remotely evidence anything supernatural.

So should we reject all historical documents that where written by "third hand" ?

Is that what I said?

Or should we reject only those sources that contradict your view?

I didn't offer a view, only disbelieved yours, for the reasons stated, sadly you won't address them honestly.

 

[Sheldon]

Again how can anyone know if you are not willing to explain what you mean by evidence.

Evidence
noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

I provided reasons for why the gospels deserve the benefit of the doubt, why dobt you refute those arguments?

I have, read them.

Build your case.

For what?

If you think that the gospels are science ficción (like Harry Potter) then develope your argument

Straw man, I never made that claim.

 

[Sheldon]

we have multiple early documents that claim that a resurrection happened, (the earliest source dates to within 2 or 3 years after the crusifixtion (sic).

Rubbish, provide a citation for that claim right now please.