Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

For most key events in ancient history, we have corroborating evidence (e.g. archaeological evidence).

When we don't have corroboration, we should at least question it.

When we don't have corroboration AND the account describes magical deeds, yes, we should reject the magical elements.

... and we generally do. The only exception seems to be religious claims from religions that are active in the world today.

 

[Valjean]

Unlike yourself I can support my assertions. We have material that afirms the resurrection (amoung other stuff) that dates within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion.

I challenge this.
Links/references, please.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are now just playing skeptic.

Some of the people who knew jesus where still alive 30-60 years after the crucifixion, we know this because some people live more than 100 years. So statically speacking we are certain that some witnesses where still alive when the gospels where written. ...This is a trivial and uncontroversial truth.

Whant a specific name? Well john the apostole died in the year 100 or so, so he was still alive when the gospels where written.


The only point that I am making is that given that witnesses where still alive, lies and legends are less likely to flurish. This is trivially and uncontroversially true. And you know it

Is it though?

How many people have claimed to have seen Elvis walking around, just within a few years after his death?
How many people claim that the 2020 election was stolen by Joe Biden, less than 2 years after the election?
How many people claim that Democrats run a pedophile ring and drink babies' blood with absolutely zero evidence of such?
How many people think that thing they saw in the sky last night is an alien spacecraft?


It doesn't really take that long for lies and legends to take form.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is it though?

How many people have claimed to have seen Elvis walking around, just within a few years after his death?
How many people claim that the 2020 election was stolen by Joe Biden, less than 2 years after the election?
How many people claim that Democrats run a pedophile ring and drink babies' blood with absolutely zero evidence of such?
How many people think that thing they saw in the fly last night is an alien spacecraft?


It doesn't really take that long for lies and legends to take form.

I find some of the resurrection story to suggest that at least some of it is from sincere, contemporary witnesses... but in a way that makes it completely mundane.

At some points in the Gospels, they describe Jesus as looking like a normal man, but also not the man he was in life: at first, the disciples don't recognize him as Jesus.

I feel like if the story was completely fictional, there would have been no reason to include that weird detail; the story would have worked just fine if the disciples had recognized Jesus right away. It suggests to me that something actually happened that the author felt the need to explain... e.g. disciples sincerely mistaking some random guy for their dead religious leader out of grief-induced pareidolia, which was then taken as a real sighting.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Is it though?

How many people have claimed to have seen Elvis walking around, just within a few years after his death?
How many people claim that the 2020 election was stolen by Joe Biden, less than 2 years after the election?
How many people claim that Democrats run a pedophile ring and drink babies' blood with absolutely zero evidence of such?
How many people think that thing they saw in the sky last night is an alien spacecraft?


It doesn't really take that long for lies and legends to take form.

It didn’t take long for people to make golden statues of their new savior. He’s not even dead yet.

 

[KWED]

I provided a quote from an atheist scholar + a source that concludes that most other scholars agree + a source explaining how they arrived at that conclusion.

What else do you whant ?

I must have missed that. Did you post it in a reply to me?

 

[KWED]

Just change alchemy for astrology, my answer would be the same.

So you believe astrology is true because Newton thought it true, because he was right about some things so he is right about everything?
There are no words....

 

[KWED]

You are si simply misrepresenting what I said.

What I said is that (hypotheticalaly) if Newton would have asserted as fact that alchemy can be done and if we where in a possition where we cant test/know if alchemy can be done or not (say we are 50% 50%) then this text by Newton should move the possibilities above 50% (in favor of alchemy)

So because we know that alchemy doesn't work, you feel justified in rejecting Newton's claims that it does, despite him being right about other stuff.
Therefore because we know that dead people can't come back to life, you therefore dismiss the Bible's claims of dead people coming back to life, even though it gets some other details right?
Seems reasonable.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Unlike yourself I can support my assertions. We have material that affirms the resurrection (among other stuff) that dates within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion.

Affirming is not good enough. With affirmation alone, all you have is an unsupported claim. You'll need confirming evidence to convince the skeptic.

Imagine that archeologists from the future find a list of 100 claims made by Newton, (100 claims that he asserts as facts). Imagine that 50 of those claims can be verified and happen to be true .To give Newton the benefit of the doubt simply means that we most assume that the other 50 claims are likely to be true (unless proven otherwise) or unless a good reason to doubt is given.

You've already been told why this is incorrect according to the tenets of skepticism and critical thought. Skeptics don't believe based on claims alone.

Are you aware that in Principia, Newton claimed that the hand of God periodically corrected the motions of the planets in their orbits? His physics, based in the application of reason (including mathematics) to physical evidence (astronomical observations) was sound up to that point, but predicted that the planetary orbits and thus the solar system should be unstable, the largest planets perturbing the orbits of the smaller ones, and eventually either attracting and absorbing those planets, or throwing them into the sun or out of the solar system into interstellar space. So, he added God as hoc.

Should he have been believed? To the skeptic, only claims which have been shown to be sound should be accepted, which is all of the physics until the faith-based part, physics used to send man to the moon and back (apparently, relativistic considerations aren't relevant important in those calculations).

Laplace didn't accept Newton's religious claim. About a century later, he supplied the mathematics Newton didn't have to solve the multiple body gravitational problem and demonstrate that the solar system was stable without supernatural intervention. Fortunately, the world is full of people that just won't believe things such as that God needs to correct the course of the smaller planets to keep them orbiting the sun or that God resurrected Jesus just because others say so, even if they have Newton's reputation.

What I said is that (hypothetically) if Newton would have asserted as fact that alchemy can be done and if we where in a position where we cant test/know if alchemy can be done or not (say we are 50% 50%) then this text by Newton should move the possibilities above 50% (in favor of alchemy)

Yes, but infinitesimally, perhaps up to 50.0004%.

The odds of a resurrection occurring were never 50/50. We can estimate the likelihood as less than 1% based on the absence of other resurrections in history. The gospel accounts make the likelihood that a resurrection occurred slightly higher, but still under 1% - insufficient to justify belief.

Why don't you stop the hypocrisy and admit that your only problem is that the some events in the NT contradict the laws of nature?

That's a pretty big problem. We have no examples of natural law being suspended.

 

[KWED]

Note how you didn't answer my question

They did. And it has been explained to you several times.
Historians do not regard a single, uncorroborated, hearsay account as "historical fact".
Not sure how much simpler that can be put.
[

 

[KWED]

You are now just playing skeptic.

No. I am a sceptic. I do not accept extraordinary claims without supporting evidence.

Some of the people who knew jesus where still alive 30-60 years after the crucifixion,

Great. Who were they?

we know this because some people live more than 100 years. So statically speacking we are certain that some witnesses where still alive when the gospels where written. ...This is a trivial and uncontroversial truth.

Ah, so you don't "know" they were alive. You are merely assuming it because it is hypothetically possible.

Whant a specific name? Well john the apostole died in the year 100 or so, so he was still alive when the gospels where written.

Even the church doesn't claim that the gospel of John was written by John the Apostle. Interestingly, scholars agree that John is less historically accurate that the synoptic gospels. Odd, given that you claim it is based on eye-witness testimony.

The only point that I am making is that given that witnesses where still alive, lies and legends are less likely to flurish. This is trivially and uncontroversially true. And you know it

Non sequitur. Especially if those "witnesses" were part of the process of establishing the myth.

 

[KWED]

Why dont you stop the hypocrisy

What hypocrisy?

and admit that your only problem is that the some events in the NT contradic the laws of nature . ?

Well, it's not my only problem with it, but (and it's a pretty big but), if an extraordinary claim is made that requires the laws of nature to be suspended (like fully dead people coming back to life with no medical intervention), there needs to be some sound, independent, corroborating evidence for that claim. If all you can provide is "Well, the early Christians believed it", then we can reasonably dismiss that claim.

After all, you have dismissed claims in the bible about dead people coming to life yourself. You think it is a "literary tool" and not meant to be taken literally.
Actually, you have avoided dealing with this issue when it has been raised on a couple of occasions.
You claim that the author should be given "the benefit of the doubt" regarding the claim that a dead person blame back to life, but you also dismiss the same claim as unreasonable (thus admitting that the Bible contains accounts of events that did not happen). Why the hypocrisy?

 

[KWED]

... and we generally do. The only exception seems to be religious claims from religions that are active in the world today.

To be fair, @leroy seemed to accept the existence of cyclops, dragons and ice giants on the basis of the accounts in the Odyssey, Mabinogion and Norse Sagas.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To be fair, @leroy seemed to accept the existence of cyclops, dragons and ice giants on the basis of the accounts in the Odyssey, Mabinogion and Norse Sagas.

The consistency trap is a hell of a drug.

 

[Sheldon]

What else do you whant ?

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

My response:
Sheldon ↑
Second hand hearsay after the fact then. If you provide it of course, which seems dubious.

An honest admission that it is second or third hand hearsay, written decades after the fact, and that the date you have given is dubious at best, and not supported by mainstream biblical scholars or the evidence, just for starters.

 

[Sheldon]

Hilarious, so based on appeal to authority fallacy you know believe in alchemy, I shan't even feign surprise anymore.

No, reed what I said , stop misrepresenting me.

Well here was your response, so which is it?

Yes Newton would deserve the benefit of the doubt (so your question was answered)

You never answered me about astrology, which Newton also believed in, and based on your criteria that if the believer was credible their belief should get the benefit of the doubt, your words, so yes you have just implied you believe in both, you have also failed to honestly address it is an appeal to authority fallacy you used of course, but that is nothing new.

 

[Sheldon]

How do you know it was hearsay?

Hearsay
noun

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

You have said yourself you're simply using bias to give it the benefit of the doubt, it's second or third hand, from unknown sources you can't substantiate, and by an unknown author or even authors.

Ok so maybe his name was not luke, maybe he had an other name like Joe, or Simon, or bob .....so what ?

Dear god....

The concensus amoung scholars is within the years 70 and 80 but so what ?

Are you trolling? Here are the two claims you made:

Luke was well informed on the stuff happening in the place and time where jesus lived. We know this because the verifiable events that he reports are usually true.

1. Your claim is at odds with the earliest date of it's authorship, according to biblical scholars.
2. You have not verified, nor can you that a resurrection occurred.

His actual name and the date are not relevant

Of course it is relevant to the credibility of any written account that we cannot verify authorship. How you think the earliest date scholars agree on as 7 to 8 decades after the fact, is a contemporary account, only you can know. I'm almost lost for words.

You did the same thing with the stegosaurus, you are appealing to authority, you are assuming thatvthe authorities are being honest and reliable when claiming that the fosdil is authentic.

Nope, because I posted multiple sources of objective evidence, none of which is SOLELY based on anyone's subjective testimony, and you acknowledge this, now you're dishonestly backtracking again. Anyone can access the methodology for verify fossils, as I did, and linked it for you, anyone can go to museums, like the Natural History Museum and see the exhibit of those fossils, again as I showed with links, anyone if they doubt the evidence can find the peer review of the work at every stage, so no they are not just testimonies.

 

[Sheldon]

You keep making this claim but I have yet to see any evidence to support it.

No no, @leroy, doesn't have to demonstrate evidence, he can just claim it exists. However when you offer links to scientific methods, and links to exhibits at the Natural History Museum, and a scientific consensus, that baffling is not evidence.

Maybe he'd believe that a Stegosaur existed, if we had an archaic text from an unknown author, making second or third hand claims that they were verified by inexplicable magic, decades or centuries beforehand.

You have to laugh...

 

[Sheldon]

I provided a quote from an atheist scholar + a source that concludes that most other scholars agree + a source explaining how they arrived at that conclusion.

What else do you whant ?

It's want not whant (sic), and could you link this mysterious post please, it should only take a few seconds to locate it using the link arrow in the posts.

 

[leroy]

For most key events in ancient history, we have corroborating evidence (e.g. archaeological evidence).

When we don't have corroboration, we should at least question it.

When we don't have corroboration AND the account describes magical deeds, yes, we should reject the magical elements.

... and we generally do. The only exception seems to be religious claims from religions that are active in the world today.

IT seems to me that you will reject “magic” regardless on the amount and quality of the sources.

But I am not saying that the gospels (and Paul) prove magic, I am saying that they prove that early Christians saw something that they interpreted as magic (resurrection)