Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Sheldon]

So why are you still falsely claiming the authenticity is based solely on unevidenced subjective testimony?

No no no I didn't say that (Red letters above)

So if you accept that fossils are verified using objective scientific methods and evidence, and not solely on subjective testimony, why have you been implying that is not the case?

 

[leroy]

leroy said: ↑
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"

And yet, you didn't.

I asked you what those sources were. I didn't ask you if you could claim there were such sources - you already made that claim. Which was why I was asking for the sources!

Again, if those 3 points haooen to be true, if I provide good sources, woukd that change anything? Wiukd tou accept it as evidence for the resurrection?

 

[leroy]

Leroy said: the autjor intended to write real historical events

?

Question begging. We don't know that. They might have knowingly been including stuff that didn't happen as a literary tool. Remember that you have already insisted that this is the case with the Bible.

Historians have methods to determine if the author of a text intended to narrate real history. 2 examples would be
1 the literary genera of the document (obviously poetry and parabels are not intended to narrate real historical events, but things like Greco-Roman biography are intended to narrate real historical events.

2 embarrassment: if the document has embarrassing details (details that would go agains your goal) then the author likelly intended to narrate real history.

The gospels happen to have these 2 points

Which "verifiable details" are you referring to?
Also, bear in mind that there are accurate, verifiable historical details in the Quran (as well as fewer supernatural claims), so presumably you accept that book as at least as genuine as the Bible - even more so?

For example (this one of hundreds of similar examples in the NT)
“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene—during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.” (Luke 3:1-2, NIV)


The author of luke had the name and title of Tiberious , Pilate, Herod, Philip, Lysanias , Annas and Caiphas correct , this is the type of verifiable historical facts that I am talking about..... only a well talented historian (or a witness) would have known the names and titles of these people.

You dont see this type of precision in the koran, nor in the Illiad, nor in harry potter.........only well respected historians like tacitus josephus, plutarch etc have this degree of precision

The name and titles of all these people can be corroborated in other sources (this is what I mean with verifiable historical facts)

This proves that the author was well informed and should get the benefit of the doubt in cases where he mentions non verifiable stuff.......as for miracles we can simlly say that they where events that where interpreted as miracles (weather if they are true miracles or not go beyond the scope of the historian)

For example we cant verify that there really was a thief named "Barrabas " (we cant prove nor disprove that claim) but given that the author of luke is usually correct with names and titles, we can give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that there really was a thief named "Barrabas "

 

[KWED]

Again, if those 3 points haooen to be true, if I provide good sources, woukd that change anything? Wiukd tou accept it as evidence for the resurrection?

And if my auntie had bollocks, she'd be my uncle.
The point is, you only claim to have such evidence, you don't actually have it.

 

[leroy]

No he isn't. He never met Jesus nor witnessed any of the events. His writings date from many years after the death of Jesus.

@Sheldon who made a similar claim earlier


In the context of ancient history contemporay sources are sources that date within 1 generation after the event. .... but ok dont label them as "contemporay" if you dont whant

The point is that Paul was alive when jesus died, Paul new Peter John James (the brother of Jesus) and many other first generation Christians .........Paul is in a good possition to tell us who jesus was and what he did. And some of his material dates back to within 2 or 3 years aftervthe crusifixtion.....

If Paul told us in corintians 1 15 that jesus resurrected and appeard to many people , then we can stablish with a high degree of certainty that early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection.

Then we have the 4 gospels that verified that information.

This is why most scholars agree that early Christians had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen jesus.......

A contemporary source is one written around the time of the actual event described. Even today, accounts written 30-80 years after are not "contemporary", and especially so in a time when most transmission was oral and therefore more unreliable.

30-80 is not a lot of time witnesses where still alive when the documwhere written. ... are you saying that we should drop all historical documents that where written 30+ years after the event ?

The reality is that every source for Jesus' life is hearsay te".

Wow that is a strong positive claim. I wonder if you will accept your burden proof and support it

 

[leroy]

And if my auntie had bollocks, she'd be my uncle.
The point is, you only claim to have such evidence, you don't actually have it.

Again what would change if i presesuch evidence? Would you change your view on the resurrection?

 

[PureX]

And if my auntie had bollocks, she'd be my uncle.
The point is, you only claim to have such evidence, you don't actually have it.

He just presented you with some reasonable evidence. But having appointed yourself the determiner of what is and isn't evidence, you have determined that only proof will be accepted as evidence. And of course proof is a completely subjective benchmark. YOUR subjective benchmark. So nothing being offered is ever going to reach that benchmark.

It might be considered a clever tactic if you were smart enough to have thought it up, but you didn't. It's just the standard intellectual dishonesty that seems to accompany atheism these days.

 

[leroy]

Leroy said: Witness where still alive

H



Oh really, and you know this how?



ct.

Math ....


If some people live 100+years then any document that was written 100years after the event would have been written during a time where wittneses where still alive.

The gospels where written 30-80 years after the event , so witnesses where still alive. (Which means that lies and legends are unlikely to flurish)


If I go to New York and tell people that Hitler invaded New York during World War II people are unlikely to be fooled because some witnesses of WW2 are still alive and they would have noticed the NAZI invation. My lies can easily be exposed by simply asking the elders if such an event happened.

The same is true with the gospels, any lies could have easily been exposed by the witnesses.... for example if the tomb was not empty , people would have known that and could have exposed the body....... (which means that a rumor or lie on the empty tomb would have been unlikely to flurish)

 

[KWED]

Historians have methods to determine if the author of a text intended to narrate real history.

Ooh, time travel mind-reading. Cool!

2 examples would be 1 the literary genera of the document (obviously poetry and parabels are not intended to narrate real historical events,

WTF, seriously? Poetry isn't used to describe real events? Now I'm sure you are just making **** up.

but things like Greco-Roman biography are intended to narrate real historical events.

But biographies from Ancient Greece and Rome often contain events that didn't happen.

2 embarrassment: if the document has embarrassing details (details that would go agains your goal) then the author likelly intended to narrate real history.

So if a document promotes an idealised portrayal of a desired agenda the author likely intended to narrate fiction or myth?

The gospels happen to have these 2 points

Your first point is flawed, as I explained. Your second point suggests that because the gospels contain accounts of magic Jesus that fulfil prophesies and promote an agenda, it is probably fiction.

The author of luke had the name and title of Tiberious , Pilate, Herod, Philip, Lysanias , Annas and Caiphas correct , this is the type of verifiable historical facts that I am talking about..... only a well talented historian (or a witness) would have known the names and titles of these people.

And yet he gives two different dates for the birth of Jesus, 10 years apart, so hardly a reliable narrator.
Once again, some accurate information about well recorded historical facts does not mean that any supernatural claims in the same document must therefore be true. It is a non sequitur of Biblical proportions.

You dont see this type of precision in the koran, nor in the Illiad, nor in harry potter.........only well respected historians like tacitus josephus, plutarch etc have this degree of precision

They contain historically accurate information, just like the Bible. You can't employ special pleading as to which types of historical information are acceptable to you.

The name and titles of all these people can be corroborated in other sources (this is what I mean with verifiable historical facts)

But they are not verifiable facts about the resurrection!

This proves that the author was well informed and should get the benefit of the doubt in cases where he mentions non verifiable stuff.

No it doesn't. Again, you are making an unfounded leap of logic fuelled only by your need to validate the magic in the Bible.

as for miracles we can simlly say that they where events that where interpreted as miracles (weather if they are true miracles or not go beyond the scope of the historian)

So now you are admitting that we can't trust the Bible to be accurate on the magical bits.
Well, I'd agree with you there.
But earlier in this conversation, you claimed that the resurrection was an actual fact, supported by evidence. So what changed your mind?

 

[leroy]

leroy said: ↑
Again, if those 3 points haooen to be true, if I provide good sources, woukd that change anything? Wiukd tou accept it as evidence for the resurrection?

And if my auntie had bollocks, she'd be my uncle.
The point is, you only claim to have such evidence, you don't actually have it.

I am simply asking if the truth of those points would count as evidence ...... why can you simply simply answer?

 

[leroy]

So now you are admitting that we can't trust the Bible to be accurate on the magical bits.
Well, I'd agree with you there.
But earlier in this conversation, you claimed that the resurrection was an actual fact, supported by evidence. So what changed your mind?

Ok so can we agree on the fact that early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a miracle (the resurrection)? An we consider this a historical fact?

 

[leroy]

.

But biographies from Ancient Greece and Rome often contain events that didn't happen.]

So what ? The point that I made is that the authors of Greco-Roman biographies typically (and in general terms) have the intend to narrate what really happened. (Not that the autjors are perfect and dont make mistakes)

So do you agree with tbis specific point

So if a document promotes an idealised portrayal of a desired agenda the author likely intended to narrate fiction or myth?

Yes

Your first point is flawed, as I explained. Your second point suggests that because the gospels contain accounts of magic Jesus that fulfil prophesies and promote an agenda, it is probably fiction.

Granted, verses that are "too good to be true " should be taken with a grain of salt. And should not be taken as history unless strong evidence is provided suporting it.

And yet he gives two different dates for the birth of Jesus, 10 years apart, so hardly a reliable narrator.

Neat picking is a dishonest tactic, all historians from antiquety made a few mistakes here and there, but we still consider them reliable

Once again, some accurate information about well recorded historical facts does not mean that any supernatural claims in the same document must therefore be true. It is a non sequitur of Biblical proportions.

No but if the author is mostly correct he deserves the benefit of the doubt, that is my point. ....

They contain historically accurate information, just like the Bible. You can't employ special pleading as to which types of historical information are acceptable to you.

Build your case, if you show that the koran or the illiad have the same level of historical accuracy i would also give ten the benefit of the doubt

But they are not verifiable facts about the resurrection!

But it shows that the author is reliable/ it can be stablish on the basis of these documents that early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection (perhaps an actual resurection, perhaps hallucinations, perhaps jesus didn't really die , perhaps an impostor fulled everyone and told people that he is jesus etc)

The point is that "something happened" that made early Christians to believe in the resurrection.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Second hand hearsay after the fact then. If you provide it of course, which seems dubious.

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

So unevidenced second-hand hearsay. If you provide it of course.

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

So a subjective second hand opinion at best. If of course you provide it.

Again, if those 3 points haooen to be true,

It's hard to believe you can't see how ridiculous it is to seek prima facie comments based on pure speculation about sources you may or may not have, and what they may or may not say. Do you have any objective evidence of any kind for anything supernatural or any deity?

if I provide good sources,

Provide them, until you do not one can say what they mean.

Wiukd tou accept it as evidence for the resurrection?

Accept what, sources you may have, that may make unevidenced claim, and may have seen something, or spoken to someone who has seen something?

 

[Sheldon]

Historians have methods to determine if the author of a text intended to narrate real history.

Credible historians don't make supernatural claims.

“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene—during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.” (Luke 3:1-2, NIV)

So what? What are you claiming this means or verifies?

The author of luke had the name and title of Tiberious , Pilate, Herod, Philip, Lysanias , Annas and Caiphas correct , this is the type of verifiable historical facts that I am talking about..... only a well talented historian (or a witness) would have known the names and titles of these people.

The author of Luke is unknown, and your speculation is wild hearsay at best, and of course doesn't remotely evidence any resurrection, or any supernatural event.

The name and titles of all these people can be corroborated in other sources (this is what I mean with verifiable historical facts)

The existence of New York city is a demonstrable fact, that fact doesn't make Spiderman or Superman real, and New York is shown in detail in both films, is this sinking in yet? Tangential or unrelated facts, don't lend credence to unevidenced supernatural claims.

This proves that the author was well informed and should get the benefit of the doubt in cases where he mentions non verifiable stuff.

Sigh, so you believe in alchemy and astrology then, since Sir Isaac Newton claimed both were true, or do you think Sir Isaac Newton was ill-informed? Or is it possible for you to grasp that being well informed on one topic, doesn't mean your bare unevidenced claims should be are believed prima facie elsewhere. it is called an appeal to authority fallacy.

as for miracles we can simlly say that they where events that where interpreted as miracles (weather if they are true miracles or not go beyond the scope of the historian)

Or any historian, since a miracle is just a perceived occurrence no one can explain, and so assigns divine agency to. look up the word in any dictionary, and tell me I am wrong.

For example we cant verify that there really was a thief named "Barrabas " (we cant prove nor disprove that claim)

Who cares, his existence would have no real relevance to the claim for a supernatural resurrection, or any other supernatural event. Anymore than New York's existence would be evidence that Spiderman and Superman were real, as they were shown there in the films.

given that the author of luke is usually correct with names and titles, we can give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that there really was a thief named "Barrabas "

No, but it doesn't matter, since it doesn't remotely evidence anything supernatural, to anyone who views the story unbiased with an open mind, why would it?

 

[Sheldon]

In the context of ancient history contemporay sources are sources that date within 1 generation after the event. .... but ok dont label them as "contemporay" if you dont whant

Contemporary
adjective

1. 1.
   living or occurring at the same time.

PAUL NEVER MET JESUS.

NO CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTS OF JESUS EXIST.

 

[Sheldon]

The reality is that every source for Jesus' life is hearsay long after the event and there cannot be claimed as "historically accurate".

hearsay
noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

Go ahead and substantiate any supernatural event assigned Jesus in the bible from any alternative source?

I don't care if the crucifixion was live on CNN, and you have Jesus's DNA on a Roman spear tip, and his cloak, with a signed affidavit from Pontius Pilate, that detailed it all.

These are NATURAL events, and don't therefore remotely evidence anything supernatural to any unbiased open minded observer. All your work would still be in front of you.

 

[Sheldon]

I do not claim to have absolute evidence for God nor the resurrection .... such that there are no other possibilities.

Have you heard of Occam's razor, every single explanation that does not rely on unexplained supernatural magic is axiomatically more probable, than something you cannot objectively demonstrate is even possible.

 

[Sheldon]

He just presented you with some reasonable evidence.

No he didn't, though are free to believe so if you wish.

But having appointed yourself the determiner of what is and isn't evidence,

Ah I forgot, your nose is firmly out of joint that others won't accept your standard for belief, why do you get to tell others what they should believe again?

you have determined that only proof will be accepted as evidence.

No, that's just a straw man you keep wheeling out, in the pretence you have anything beyond subjective hearsay, and blind faith.

And of course proof is a completely subjective benchmark. YOUR subjective benchmark.

Your benchmark, that you are assigning to anyone who dares not share your belief, it's too obvious a straw man to be even funny anymore, so rank sophistry is all that's left.

It's just the standard intellectual dishonesty that seems to accompany atheism these days.

No true Scotsman fallacy, well done.

 

[Sheldon]

some of the witnesses where stll alive.

Oh really, and you know this how?

Math ....


If some people live 100+years then any document that was written 100years after the event would have been written during a time where wittneses where still alive.

Hahahahhahahahah

So no evidence at all then, just pure speculation. name the eye witnesses, along with a reasonable amount of objective evidence for their ages at the time of the events you assert they witnessed, just as a starting point.

If someone I trusted implicitly came to me right now, and said they'd witnessed a supernatural event an hour ago, I'd be dubious, and for pretty obvious reasons.

No one can objectively demonstrate that anything supernatural is possible. That's a high bar as a starting point, if you think guesses and made up maths gets you closer to validating a resurrection, it's hard to know what to say, except I as dubious about the belief now as I was at the start of this discourse.

 

[leroy]

Second hand hearsay after the fact then. If you provide it of course, which seems dubious.

Prove that the NT is based on hearsay when it comes to the resurrection.

Or is it an other case where you font have to support your claims ?