Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[leroy]

I already evidenced the assertion,

No you did not.

You have dishonestly ignored that, and more dishonestly attacked me with the falsehood that I don't evidence claims, when anyone can go back and read my posts to see I did precisely that.

You repeat that dishonest tactic over and over again

1 you made a random assertion

2 I asked for evidence

3 you lie and say that the evidenced has been provided……….. that is pathetic from your part…………

However I will repost it here, even though I already posted the evidence that biblical scholars don't agree with your claim.

"The seven Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine are dated to between AD 50 and 60 (i.e., approximately twenty to thirty years after the generally accepted time period for the death of Jesus) and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that may include information about Jesus."



A subjective opinion, based on a single book, and you have failed to substantiate what it is based on, or provide any context beyond the claim. A claim not held by mainstream biblical scholars (see above).



There is no such word as whant (sic) in the English language.

No, No, scholars don’t agree with your straw man version of my claim. (scholars agree with my actual claim)

What scholars (and I ) are saying I that Paul quotes material that can be dated within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion……… that is the claim that I made, and the claim that I supported.



So what is next,? Will you admit that you made a mistake and apologize for your straw man?

 

[Sheldon]

Historians use the new testament (gospels Paul, acts ..) as sources for real history.

Even were this true, and I am dubious as to how much of it can be corroborated beyond mere hearsay, it does not remotely evidence anything supernatural, like the resurrection.

 

[leroy]

You said it was a mathematical certainty.





I don't think certain means what you think it does.

Ok my mistake I used the incorrect word (see how easy it is to admit mistakes?)

So do you reject the claim that some witnesses where alive when the gospels where written? Or you are just trolling and playing skeptic?

 

[lukethethird]

The bible is not “a book” the bible is a bunch of independent documents each stands or falls by their own merits.

Historians use the new testament (gospels Paul, acts ..) as sources for real history.

Historians do not use the gospels as sources for real history, only believers like you do that. The gospels and Acts contain fantasy, as do all the the books in The Bible.

 

[questfortruth]

Why don't you try telling us why you think Aquinas's 5 ways are compelling arguments for a deity?

Any proof is valid until it is shown as a debunked proof.

 

[Sheldon]

Is that a yes or a no?--------- o yea I forgot you don’t answer questions directly.

You're simply trolling now, the answer is manifest in the definition of the word. I'm not sure what this sophistry is hoping to achieve, but I am happy for others to go back, and see that I have answered you, as have several others.

 

[leroy]

Even were this true, and I am dubious as to how much of it can be corroborated beyond mere hearsay, it does not remotely evidence anything supernatural, like the resurrection.

Again, impossible to know, because nobody knows what you mean by evidence.


The NT proves with high degree of certainty that:

1 Jesus died on the cross

2 was buried

3 the tomb as found empty

4 early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection.

5 Paul and James became christian after the crusifixtion

Whether if you what to label this as evidence for the resurrection or not depends on your own personal and subjective understanding of the word “evidence”

 

[Sheldon]

1 you made a random assertion

2 I asked for evidence

3 you lie and say that the evidenced has been provided……….. that is pathetic from your part…………

I reposted it in the post you just responded to. As anyone can now see.

No, No, scholars don’t agree with your straw man version of my claim. (scholars agree with my actual claim)

What straw man? The scholarly consensus simply does not support your claim.

What scholars (and I ) are saying I that Paul quotes material that can be dated within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion……… that is the claim that I made, and the claim that I supported.

<LINK>

"The seven Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine are dated to between AD 50 and 60 (i.e., approximately twenty to thirty years after the generally accepted time period for the death of Jesus) and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that may include information about Jesus."

<LINK>

"The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110. All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission."

So second and third hand anonymous hearsay, and no eyewitnesses.

 

[Sheldon]

Ok my mistake I used the incorrect word (see how easy it is to admit mistakes?)

Easy? You have relentlessly accused my of lying, and only when I quoted your posts did you recant.

So do you reject the claim that some witnesses where alive when the gospels where written?

That's for you establish. I have yet to see anything beyond second and third hand hearsay, from largely unknown sources, that there were any eyewitnesses, or anything to witness beyond natural events. For an extraordinary claim like a supernatural resurrection, the weight of evidence would necessarily have to match the extraordinary nature of the claim before I would find it compelling. That is what I mean when I say sufficient objective evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

Any proof is valid until it is shown as a debunked proof.

No it isn't, that claim is the very definition of any argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, ipso facto it is irrational by definition.

<CITATION>

"Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false"

If the best defence of Aquinas's arguments you can offer, is a known common logical fallacy, then there is only one inference I can draw.

 

[Sheldon]

Again, impossible to know, because nobody knows what you mean by evidence.

Anyone who wishes to can go back through this thread and see that I have gone to great lengths to explain what I mean by evidence, is in fact the commonly used definition of the word. They will note the number of times you have dishonestly repeated this false accusation as well. What you hope to gain from such dishonesty is unclear, and of course irrelevant. Here is the definition of evidence yet again then, and it is what I mean when I say evidence.

Evidence
noun

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

The NT proves with high degree of certainty that:
1 Jesus died on the cross
2 was buried
3 the tomb as found empty
4 early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection.
5 Paul and James became christian after the crusifixtion

1. No it doesn't, what we have a second and third hand hearsay from largely unknown authors written decades after the fact. Nothing about the crucifixion is established with a "high degree of certainty", that is ludicrous hyperbole. Though most scholars accept it happened.
2. So what?
3. There is no objective evidence for this, only unsubstantiated hearsay, but again so what?
4. We have no objective evidence for this, let alone a high degree of certainty, however they could have attended with independent witnesses and video cameras, and I would still need more than an unexplained event, to believe something supernatural had occurred.
5. So what?

Whether if you what to label this as evidence for the resurrection or not depends on your own personal and subjective understanding of the word “evidence”

It is neither objective nor compelling, it amounts to little more than second and third hand hearsay, but again even were the eyewitnesses on record as being unable to explain something, like an empty tomb, an unknown natural explanation is still a far more probable explanation, that assumptions of something supernatural. Especially given it was an epoch of ignorance and superstition.

 

[leroy]

You're simply trolling now, the answer is manifest in the definition of the word. I'm not sure what this sophistry is hoping to achieve, but I am happy for others to go back, and see that I have answered you, as have several others.

It´s all part of your dishonest tactic of not answering directly because obviously you are hopelessly cornered………… if you answer yes, then you would have to admit that almost everything in history and science is hearsay, if you answer no you would have a burden proof that you cannot carry.

 

[leroy]

Anyone who wishes to can go back through this thread and see that I have gone to great lengths to explain what I mean by evidence, is in fact the commonly used definition of the word. They will note the number of times you have dishonestly repeated this false accusation as well. What you hope to gain from such dishonesty is unclear, and of course irrelevant. Here is the definition of evidence yet again then, and it is what I mean when I say evidence.

Evidence
noun

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

That definition doesn’t allow one to tell is something is evidence or not., you have been told multiple times and you keep repeating it.

I am asking for an objective method that would allow us to determine if something is evidence or not

What you hope to gain from such dishonesty is unclear, and of course irrelevant.

My hope is to gain an objective bar that you would accept, so that I can provide such evidence. You refuse to answer because if

1 you set the bar too high you would have to reject many things (including the authenticity of the stegosaurus at the museum”

2 if you set the bar at a realistic level, you know that it would be very easy to provide evidence.

1. No it doesn't, what we have a second and third hand hearsay from largely unknown authors written decades after the fact. Nothing about the crucifixion is established with a "high degree of certainty", that is ludicrous hyperbole. Though most scholars accept it happened.
2. So what?
3. There is no objective evidence for this, only unsubstantiated hearsay, but again so what?
4. We have no objective evidence for this, let alone a high degree of certainty, however they could have attended with independent witnesses and video cameras, and I would still need more than an unexplained event, to believe something supernatural had occurred.
5. So what?

Again vague and ambiguous answers……………… do you accept those 5 facts? Do you accept that each of them is more probably true than wrong? Why can’t you answer with simple yes or no?..........o yes keeping the answers vague is part of your strategy.

, but again even were the eyewitnesses on record as being unable to explain something, like an empty tomb, an unknown natural explanation is still a far more probable explanation, that assumptions of something supernatural. Especially given it was an epoch of ignorance and superstition.

why? Just because you say so?


Assuming that you accept the 5 facts mentioned earlier, provide your favorite naturalistic explanation and explain why is it better than a resurrection.

Assuming that you deny those facts, explain why you think scholars are wrong


I wont answer to any of your claims untill you adress one of these 2 points

 

[questfortruth]

I wont answer to any of your claims untill you adress one of these 2 points

He is not serious here, he is just joker.

 

[Mock Turtle]

He is not serious here, he is just joker.

But you can't even claim that.

 

[questfortruth]

But you can't even claim that.

I am free to do it. OK, I cannot, but I am free.

 

[Sheldon]

That definition doesn’t allow one to tell is something is evidence or not.

The definition of what constitutes evidence, doesn't explain what constitutes evidence? I'm sorry if you can't see the idiocy of that remark, nevertheless that is what constitutes evidence.

I am asking for an objective method that would allow us to determine if something is evidence or not

You know what evidence means, as do I, and as does everyone else. Present the best you have, and each person may subject your claims to critical scrutiny. That is how debate works. You seem to be annoyed because others have a higher bar for credulity than you, that I cannot help you with. Though it should be noted, that I set the same standard for god claims, as I do for all others.

My hope is to gain an objective bar that you would accept, so that I can provide such evidence.

I have absolutely no interest in your hopes, sorry. That is not how I assess claims or beliefs.

You refuse to answer

I have answered it, you just don't like the answer.

if
1 you set the bar too high you would have to reject many things (including the authenticity of the stegosaurus at the museum”

I set the bar for my acceptance of any and all claims as that they be supported by sufficient objective evidence. The words are in the dictionary, your inability to grasp their relevance is your problem not mine.

2 if you set the bar at a realistic level, you know that it would be very easy to provide evidence.

Ah I see, you find my atheism irksome, well if I can offer a small piece of advice, get over it.

Again vague and ambiguous answers……………… do you accept those 5 facts?

I just answered that, and nothing in my answers was remotely vague, as any literate person can see.

Do you accept that each of them is more probably true than wrong?

Read my previous answers.

Why can’t you answer with simple yes or no?

I can when a yes or no is an appropriate response, but most people can understand when such a response is so facile it contributes little to the debate, I'm sorry if you can't, but again that's hardly my problem.

..........o yes keeping the answers vague is part of your strategy.

Which answer didn't you understand, and why? Or is relentless ad hominem all you have left?

It is neither objective nor compelling, it amounts to little more than second and third hand hearsay, but again even were the eyewitnesses on record as being unable to explain something, like an empty tomb, an unknown natural explanation is still a far more probable explanation, that assumptions of something supernatural. Especially given it was an epoch of ignorance and superstition.

why? Just because you say so?

No. There you go, happy now, you got a one word answer.

Assuming that you accept the 5 facts mentioned earlier,

Read my responses, and stop making idiotically false assumptions.

provide your favorite naturalistic explanation and explain why is it better than a resurrection.

Any natural explanation is more probable obviously, as we know for an objective fact that natural phenomena are possible.

Assuming that you deny those facts, explain why you think scholars are wrong

Are you still beating your wife?

I wont answer to any of your claims untill you adress one of these 2 points

You may sulk as much as you are minded to, it's all the same to me.

 

[Sheldon]

He is not serious here, he is just joker.

 

[Sheldon]

It´s all part of your dishonest tactic of not answering directly because obviously you are hopelessly cornered…………

I gave a direct and specific answer, again all anyone has to do is go back and look, so these relentless personal attacks are fooling no one.

if you answer yes, then you would have to admit that almost everything in history and science is hearsay, if you answer no you would have a burden proof that you cannot carry.

False dichotomy fallacy.

"an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives."

 

[KWED]

The modern atheists have no such brain-power as the Emmanuel Kant had. He has debunked all 5 ways of Thomas. But some researches still disagree with this debunkment. Hence, the modern atheists cannot give something new in addition to Kant achievement.[/QUOTE I'm sorry. Did you genuinely think that was a response to my points?