Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[leroy]

Credible historians don't make supernatural claims.



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



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 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.



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.



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.



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.



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?

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.

How can I ever know, if you are to willing to explain what you mean by evidence?

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

That the author of luke was well informed

 

[leroy]

Contemporary
adjective

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

PAUL NEVER MET JESUS.

NO CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTS OF JESUS EXIST.

Ok and is that a mayor problem ? Do you need "contemporary sources" from people who knew a person in order to stablish his existence the stuff he did?

 

[lukethethird]

Ok and is that a mayor problem ? Do you need "contemporary sources" from people who knew a person in order to stablish his existence the stuff he did?

Dude, think about it.

 

[leroy]

Hahahahhahahahah

So no evidence at all then, just pure speculation.

Jajjajaa so not even mathematical certainty is good enough for you, ....... is this how an unbiased open minded man suppose to look like ?

If you are not willing to accept simple and uncontroversial facts then you are obviously just trolling and playing skeptic.

When the gospels where written, some witnesses where still a live. (Only a fanatic troll would deny it).....So whatever happened 2000 years ago, there where witnesses that could potentially refute any lies or rumors or myths.

 

[leroy]

leroy said: ↑
Ok and is that a mayor problem ? Do you need "contemporary sources" from people who knew a person in order to stablish his existence the stuff he did?

Dude, think about it.

We don't have a single contemporary source for most of the events in ancient history. .... should we reject all ancient history?

 

[Trailblazer]

No True Scotsman fallacy. Most religionists really do believe in god.
When I said really believe in God I mean not only believes in God but knows that God exists.

No, it is untrue that most religionists really do believe in God. Many people belong to a religion and just go through the motions, go to Church because they always did or that is expected of them. Moreover, an Agnostic Theist believes there is a God but does not know for sure. If they don't know for sure they do not really believe in God.

What you meant was "if people believed in my version of god," which is a claim made by all religionists.

No, that is NOT what I meant at all. It has nothing to do with any particular religion or any particular God.
Really believe in God means one is a Gnostic Theist, they know for sure that God exists.

I'm sure most religionists would question whether you really believe in god, in the same way that you question their belief.

They can question what I believe all they want but they do not live inside my head so they do not know what I believe or whether I really believe in God. If someone told me they really believed in God I would not question them. I would believe them, because only they know what they believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have done so on multiple occasions. You simply don't have the capacity to understand it. I really must try and remember what I shouldn't encourage you.

You are so much smarter than me so I do not have the capacity to understand you. Arrogance much?

Why do you feel a need to convince me that my religion is not true unless you are worried it might be true or unless you just need to be right, which is arrogance?

That also applies for your need to convince Christians they are wrong and you are right. You can call it a debate but the need to be right is arrogance. There are only certain atheists on this forum who do this, not all atheists have a need to disprove theists.

Many people sign things they didn't write themselves.

He did not write it all Himself. He dictated some of the Writings to His secretary, but after that He reviewed the content, and only after reviewing it did He stamp it with His official seal.

Really? Every page?
Evidence please.

You will have to go find that yourself.

We weren't taking about that. You claimed that I couldn't know whether you are right or wrong about something.

We were not talking about math, we were talking about Baha'u'llah being a Messenger of God.

Aaand, here we go round again. You are about to claim that you know your belief is true...

I do not claim it is true, I know it is true, but HOW I know that is not something you can understand because I was guided by God to know.

Ok. On what do you base your certainty that your belief is true, given that you have admitted that you do not know it is true?

I have not admitted that I do not know it is true.

You said... "I do not need verifiable evidence in order to know what I know."
Now you are admitting that you don't "know", you merely "believe".

No, I am not admitting that. I know what I believe is true. Why does it matter to you whether I know or believe?
I do not care about what you know or believe.

Also, glad you have finally admitted that you do not know Bahaullah was a messenger from god, you merely believe it, but you have no way of verifying it - despite claiming many times that it was an evidence-based fact.

No, I am not admitting that. I do know and "I do not need verifiable evidence in order to know what I know."

I guess English isn't your first language so you are struggling with some of the basics, but those three words are essentially synonymous.

Give it up for lost. There would not be three words if they all meant exactly the same thing. Everything a person says is not a claim. If I say I am going to the corner store later is that a claim? I am not making a claim, I am only saying what I believe.

Baha'u'llah made claims and He provided proof to back up those claims. Whether you consider it proof or not is a moot point.

"The people of those times spoke a language different from those now known."
He says "a different language", not "different languages"

"Diversities of language arose in a later age,"
This means that before that age, there was no diversity in language.
Diversity in language has always existed. Wherever there is evidence of language around the world it is always different.

"in a land known as Babel."
"Babel" is the Hebrew name for Babylon. There are several known languages older than the historical settlement at Babylon.

I appreciate that as English isn't your first language you might struggle with the implications of some statements, but what Bahaullah wrote has meaning, and that meaning is wrong.

English is my first language. My father was a college English professor and I helped him grade his papers when I was 10 years old.

I am not struggling with anything because I know that Baha'u'llah was infallible.
Everything you say is only a matter of YOUR interpretation, what you think the text means. You have proven nothing.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Please for once honestly address what I actually posted, and not another of your tediously dishonest straw men.

Your claim:

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

My response:

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

So we can note that:

1. You responded with a dishonest straw man.
2. You did not provide the evidence for your claim.

Quod erat demonstrandum

 

[Sheldon]

How can I ever know, if you are to 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.

That the author of luke was well informed

So was Sir Isaac Newton, are you saying that you thus believe his claims that alchemy and astrology are credible?

Only you ignored this question twice already, so you have made this claim 3 times now, and ignored my question each time.

You also ignored this question: (the link will provide the context)

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

You also ignored this question: (see above)

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?

You also ignored this question: (again the link provides the context)

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]

Ok and is that a mayor problem ? Do you need "contemporary sources" from people who knew a person in order to stablish his existence the stuff he did?

So you were wrong then, only you were pretty strident about my post and KWEDS being wrong, so I think I'd appreciate you specifically admitting it, before you dishonestly attempt to move the goal posts yet again. Especially since you accused me of lying.

Paul never met Jesus, thus his accounts written after Jesus death are not contemporary accounts as you claimed, so you were wrong, and what's more repeated your claim when I pointed it out, even accusing me of lying - here:

Again Paul is contemporary , you have been told multiple times and you keep repeating that lie......

contemporay sources are sources that date within 1 generation after the event.

 

[Sheldon]

so not even mathematical certainty is good enough for you,

You don't know there were any eyewitnesses, and you don't know their ages, so it's edifying to see what you consider as certainty. Nice goal post shifting though, then again the say practice makes perfect, so you ought to be pretty good.

If you are not willing to accept simple and uncontroversial facts then you are obviously just trolling and playing skeptic.

Oh dear, uncontroversial facts? They were plucked from a pure guess about the ages of eye witnesses you only have unnamed second-hand accounts of? I can only suggest you calm down and read some expert accounts of the subject matter, and not just religious apologist websites you're Googling for the answers you want.

When the gospels where written, some witnesses where still a live.

And you know this how? name the witnesses, and provide sufficient objective evidence for what you are claiming they witnessed, and their ages at that time, and for the date of their deaths. As a bare minimum..

(Only a fanatic troll would deny it).....

Ad hominem fallacy, tread carefully please.

So whatever happened 2000 years ago, there where witnesses that could potentially refute any lies or rumors or myths.

And you know this how? name the witnesses, and provide sufficient objective evidence for what you are claiming they witnessed, and their ages at that time, and for the date of their deaths. As a bare minimum..

 

[Sheldon]

We don't have a single contemporary source for most of the events in ancient history. .... should we reject all ancient history?

If they involve unevidenced claims for supernatural magic, then yes.

 

[Sheldon]

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?

Still waiting for an answer from @leroy on this one?

 

[KWED]

No, it is untrue that most religionists really do believe in God. Many people belong to a religion and just go through the motions, go to Church because they always did or that is expected of them. Moreover, an Agnostic Theist believes there is a God but does not know for sure. If they don't know for sure they do not really believe in God.

No, that is NOT what I meant at all. It has nothing to do with any particular religion or any particular God.
Really believe in God means one is a Gnostic Theist, they know for sure that God exists.

They can question what I believe all they want but they do not live inside my head so they do not know what I believe or whether I really believe in God. If someone told me they really believed in God I would not question them. I would believe them, because only they know what they believe.

Still a classic No True Scotsman fallacy.

But anyway, why would people really believing in any god (you claim it doesn't matter which ones) make the world a better place?

 

[KWED]

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?

What makes you think I agree on that? I have repeatedly explained why that is a flawed claim.
The resurrection story could be completely fabricated, including the third-hand, non-contemporary claims that people witnessed it. We have no way of determining if it really happened.
However, as a fully dead person coming back to life without any medical assistance is impossible, there needs to be conclusive evidence to support such an extraordinary claim. Simply claiming that it might have happened because there are some uncorroborated accounts in ancient texts designed to promote that very narrative, is not even compelling, let alone conclusive.
The reality is that, given all the information available, it is more likely that the resurrection never happened.

 

[Trailblazer]

But anyway, why would people really believing in any god (you claim it doesn't matter which ones) make the world a better place?

Ever heard of the fear of God? If one really believes in God one fears God's displeasure. They also want to obey God out of love, not just out of fear, so they do all they can to follow His commandments. If everyone followed God's commandments the world would be a better place because there would be no more evil in the world..

 

[Sheldon]

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 ?

Since you ignored this last time I will try bullet points again.
Hearsay
noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated

Lets try bullet points;

1. @leroy says something, that is first hand.
2. Someone claims @leroy said something, that is second hand.
3. Someone claims someone witnessed @leroy saying something, that is third hand.

Pauls claims about what others told him Jesus said or did, are ipso facto third hand hearsay, and since they were written after Jesus is alleged to have died, they are not contemporary accounts.

 

[Sheldon]

What makes you think I agree on that? I have repeatedly explained why that is a flawed claim.
The resurrection story could be completely fabricated, including the third-hand, non-contemporary claims that people witnessed it. We have no way of determining if it really happened.
However, as a fully dead person coming back to life without any medical assistance is impossible, there needs to be conclusive evidence to support such an extraordinary claim. Simply claiming that it might have happened because there are some uncorroborated accounts in ancient texts designed to promote that very narrative, is not even compelling, let alone conclusive.
The reality is that, given all the information available, it is more likely that the resurrection never happened.

But but but, @leroy said....benefit of the doubt and stuff????

 

[KWED]

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

A "contemporary source" needs to be "at the same time", the point being that there event and the observer are not too far removed.
"Living or occurring at the same time." - (OED)
Someone writing about an event 20-30 years after it happened may not even have been alive at the time. It cannot be called "contemporary".

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.

So, "non-contemporary, 3rd hand accounts".

And some of his material dates back to within 2 or 3 years aftervthe crusifixtion.....

Once again, you keep repeating claims but failing to provide any evidence. This seems to be your standard tactic.

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.

No. We don't even know that Paul was told that some people said they had seen something. It could all be fabricated.

Then we have the 4 gospels that verified that information.

They are not independent sources. They are part of the same source. And a source with a vested interest in promoting the magic Jesus myth.

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

You keep using this phrase "most scholars agree..."
What you actually mean is "Cherry-picked scholars who believe the resurrection narrative claim that people saw what they assumed to be the resurrection."
If you widen your net to "historians", then the consensus is that there is nothing substance to support the resurrection claim as true.

30-80 is not a lot of time witnesses where still alive when the documwhere written. ...

Who were these witnesses and where is their testimony recorded?

are you saying that we should drop all historical documents that where written 30+ years after the event ?

Any document that purports to describe an event that requires the laws of nature to be suspended, but has no independent corroboration, should be viewed with extreme scepticism if it is 30-80 days old!

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

You seem confused.
Every source for Jesus' life was written years after the events, by people who had never met him. Not even someone so ideologically blinkered as you can deny that.
Therefore, by definition, those accounts are hearsay long after the event and there cannot be claimed as "historically accurate".
Really not sure what you are struggling with there.

 

[Sheldon]

If everyone followed God's commandments the world would be a better place because there would be no more evil in the world..

1. Evil is subjective.
2. The biblical deity specifically endorse and encourages slavery, murder, ethnic cleansing and sex trafficking virginal female prisoners, to name but a few, so I am dubious.