Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Sheldon]

Just clarify
If "A" is possible an" B" has not been proven to be possible "A" will always be a better explanation.

We know natural phenomena are possible as an objective fact, we haven't any objective evidence that anything supernatural is possible, hence to claim (as you did) that the best explanation to an empty tomb, is a supernatural resurrection, is incorrect, since we know natural explanations could exist, and we know they are at least possible.

Who knows given that you haven't explained what would you accept as evidence

You want me to tell you what you should demonstrate as evidence for a belief you hold and I do not? Do you think I won't notice when you dishonestly repeat this claim ad nauseam, then suddenly change it from how I define evidence, to what will I accept as evidence for a claim? Or is your grasp of English really this bad?

READ SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY...AND PLEASE READ IT ALL.

evidence
noun

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

That is how evidence is defined, it does not mean that I will find whatever you present as evidence, sufficient for or compelling enough, to believe your conclusion. You seem to struggle with the difference, so lets try an analogy:

My feet are objectively shown to be wet. (This is the evidence) (see definition above)

I claim I must certainly be in the bath (This is the claim)

Now think carefully, is that evidence sufficient to support the claim, and do take your time? Now you are talking about an unknown author from 2 millennia ago, allegedly claiming that someone else told him, that someone had wet feet, and leaping to a supernatural conclusion as the best explanation, lets say his feet were made wet by a miracle.

Now I can't say the evidence supports the claim, I can say the claim is at least more probable than the miracle, for the reasons already stated.

You havent stablish if you reject or accept the crucifixion as a historical event.

Here are your 5 assertions again:
1 Jesus died on the cross
There is not a high degree of certainty as you claimed, but there is a scholarly consensus it occurred. Given how commonplace the name and the punishment were in this epoch, I would not dispute a claim I find to be trivially true in this context, HAPPY?
2 was buried
I have no problem accepting this claim since pretty much everyone is buried, though again I would dispute we know this to a high degree of certainty in this specific instance as you claimed. HAPPY?
3 the tomb as found empty
I have no idea if this is true, as it is entirely based on second or even third hand hearsay, and I don't believe your claim it is substantiated to a high degree of certainty. Though again I would have no problme accepting it might true, since it would seem a trivial truth. HAPPY?
4 early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection.
I have no idea what anyone did or did not see, and certainly not to a high degree of certainty, as you claimed. I can only speculate on what they believed for much the same reason. However since it has no relevance, I would not rule out they held such a superstitious belief. HAPPY?
5 Paul and James became christian after the crusifixtion
Since there were no Christians prior to the crucifixion this seems trivially true, but again I would dispute there is a high degree of certainty, merely that there is some anecdotal evidence they claimed to be Christians HAPPY?

You design your answers deliberately so that you are not explicitly accepting nor rejecting anything. But rather keeping your possition vague so that you can avoid any burden proof.

I am careful not to indulge in bombast and hyperbole, or to make claims for knowledge I feel are not justified. You find this irksome because you view claims you want to believe, in a biased and very strident and facile way, which is not conducive to critical thinking or objective scrutiny.

If you answer :
1 yes I accept those facts
2 if you answer No, I dont accept

Well there you go, a facile false dichotomy, I'm sorry you can't see that your clumsy attempts to bludgeon others into your strident and binary view of complex narratives, is biased and irrational, but hey ho.

 

[Sheldon]

The scholarly consensus is that Paul wrote his letters 25 years or so after the crucifixion and that he is using sources (creeds) that can be dated within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion.

So there is a scholarly consensus that the earliest written account of the crucifixion is 2 to 3 decades after the fact. Which was precisely what I posted, and anyone can go back and see the quote and the link.

 

[Sheldon]

How do you know that Alexander Grate was born in Macedonia?

I don't even know who Alexander grate (sic) was, an ancient chimney sweep from Macedonia?

Alexander the Great of course is claimed to have been born in Macedonia, if that is what you meant?

No eyewitnesses can be consulted, and nothing can be reproduced.........but still you learn that stuff in school as if it where a fact.

There are archaeological artefacts that can be produced, coins and pottery with his likeness on them for example, and corroborating accounts of various aspects of his life from multiple independent coerces. However most importantly this historical fact is not being claimed to support anything supernatural.

So ether
1 everything in history is a lie (or unsupported gossip as you call it)
2 or there are ways to support historical claims .

Everything in history is not being asserted as evidence for supernatural magic, why do you think you can ignore that fact?

Which one do you think is more likely to be true?

I am going to go with 2. What do I win?

 

[Sheldon]

They are not! You have an awful strange idea of well substantiated.
How are they substantiated at all?

You don't understand @leroy can't process answers less facile than yes or no. This is why he constantly annoyed that he can't "hammer square pegs into round holes."

 

[leroy]

They are not! You have an awful strange idea of well substantiated.
How are they substantiated at all?

They are not! You have an awful strange idea of well substantiated.
How are they substantiated at all?

From your words (and unless you clarify otherwise) I will assume that you reject these facts….

So which of the facts do you find less likely to be true, so that I can substantiate it?

1 jesus was crucified

2 jesus was buried

3 the tomb was found emty

4 the disciples (and others) had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen jesus

5 Paul and James converted to Christianity After the death of Jesus.

 

[leroy]

However most importantly this historical fact is not being claimed to support anything supernatural.....

Everything in history is not being asserted as evidence for supernatural magic, why do you think you can ignore that fact?

?

Why didn’t you start by saying “No amount of historical data will ever count as evidence that something supernatural happened 2000 years ago?

We would have saved hundreds of unnecessary comments and hours’ worth of time, if you would have started with that claim.

 

[leroy]

I am going to go with 2. What do I win?

Nothing, the point is that your issue is not the historical evidence, / nor the reliability of the NT as historical documents, your issue is that you made a philosophical assumption that miracles are impossible and/or unacceptable

If you would have made that clear 2 or 3 months ago we would have started a discussion on weather if that philosophical assumption is valid or not rather than discussing on the reliability / date / authorship etc. of the NT

 

[leroy]

You don't understand @leroy can't process answers less facile than yes or no. This is why he constantly annoyed that he can't "hammer square pegs into round holes."

Ok so if you know that I can’t understand complex answers that go beyond YES OR NO why don’t you answer with a simple yes or a simple no?

 

[leroy]

So there is a scholarly consensus that the earliest written account of the crucifixion is 2 to 3 decades after the fact. Which was precisely what I posted, and anyone can go back and see the quote and the link.

And I never denied that claim of yours.

 

[leroy]

We know natural phenomena are possible as an objective fact, we haven't any objective evidence that anything supernatural is possible, hence to claim (as you did) that the best explanation to an empty tomb, is a supernatural resurrection, is incorrect, since we know natural explanations could exist, and we know they are at least possible.

Ok so just to clarify

Any natural explanation that would explain the fact or event is always better that a supernatural explanation.

The key word is “always”

Is this something that you would say?

A trivial example:

if doors and drawers start to open and close and you hear a voice saying BOOO then you see a vanishing image of your fried that just died a few days ago in your house, and there are other witnesses with you who also observe the same thing, you would say that: A bad joke form your neighbor that faked the Ghost is always a better explanation than a real Ghost?

Or is there a hypothetical scenario where “real ghost” becomes a better explanation than a joke….. ? for example assume that this joke would have cost $1,000,000usd worth of fancy technology and that your neighbor is just a middle class worker that doesn’t seem to have enough money.

I understand and grant that a supernatural explanation losses points just because it has not been shown to be possible, but I wouldn’t go as far as to reject them by default. (just wondering if you agree with this last statement)




You want me to tell you what you should demonstrate as evidence for a belief you hold and I do not? Do you think I won't notice when you dishonestly repeat this claim ad nauseam, then suddenly change it from how I define evidence, to what will I accept as evidence for a claim? Or is your grasp of English really this bad?

READ SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY...AND PLEASE READ IT ALL.

evidence
noun

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

That is how evidence is defined, it does not mean that I will find whatever you present as evidence, sufficient for or compelling enough, to believe your conclusion. You seem to struggle with the difference, so lets try an analogy:

My feet are objectively shown to be wet. (This is the evidence) (see definition above)

I claim I must certainly be in the bath (This is the claim)

From your definition one can’t determine if “wet fit” is evidence or not………… that is my point

Here are your 5 assertions again:
1 Jesus died on the cross
There is not a high degree of certainty as you claimed, but there is a scholarly consensus it occurred. Given how commonplace the name and the punishment were in this epoch, I would not dispute a claim I find to be trivially true in this context, HAPPY?
2 was buried
I have no problem accepting this claim since pretty much everyone is buried, though again I would dispute we know this to a high degree of certainty in this specific instance as you claimed. HAPPY?
3 the tomb as found empty
I have no idea if this is true, as it is entirely based on second or even third hand hearsay, and I don't believe your claim it is substantiated to a high degree of certainty. Though again I would have no problme accepting it might true, since it would seem a trivial truth. HAPPY?
4 early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection.
I have no idea what anyone did or did not see, and certainly not to a high degree of certainty, as you claimed. I can only speculate on what they believed for much the same reason. However since it has no relevance, I would not rule out they held such a superstitious belief. HAPPY?
5 Paul and James became christian after the crusifixtion
Since there were no Christians prior to the crucifixion this seems trivially true, but again I would dispute there is a high degree of certainty, merely that there is some anecdotal evidence they claimed to be Christians HAPPY?

Ok so atleast for the sake of this discussion you are willing to accept those facts…………true?

 

[Sheldon]

Why didn’t you start by saying “No amount of historical data will ever count as evidence that something supernatural happened 2000 years ago?

Probably because that is your straw man, and not a claim I would make.

We would have saved hundreds of unnecessary comments and hours’ worth of time, if you would have started with that claim.

I haven't made that claim, only you are dealing in sweeping absolutes.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
I am going to go with 2. What do I win?

Nothing,

Then why ask?

the point is that your issue is not the historical evidence, / nor the reliability of the NT as historical documents,

That's a sweeping straw man again, as whether I had a problem would depend on the claim.

you made a philosophical assumption that miracles are impossible and/or unacceptable

I certainly have not, you are again making up sweeping and dishonest straw men, and assigning them to me, when I have not made any such claim. Sweeping unevidenced assertions your modus operandi, not mine. I wonder will you ever tire of pointlessly hammering that square peg into a round hole, and actually address what people post?

 

[Sheldon]

Ok so if you know that I can’t understand complex answers that go beyond YES OR NO why don’t you answer with a simple yes or a simple no?

Are you still beating your wife?

Yes or No only please...

 

[leroy]

Don't waste my time, you have had the meaning of hearsay explained numerous times, I even quoted it twice tonight and you still made your dishonest claim, and you can use Google one assumes to find the definition for yourself in just seconds. So your claim that fossil authentication is based solely on hearsay is dishonest nonsense.

The problem is that you comment for the sake of commenting without understanding the context of the conversation.

KWED said

KWED said: ↑
Oh dear. This really isn't getting through, is it?

Corinthians account of the resurrection was written by someone who was not a witness to it. Therefore he must have been told about it by someone else (if he didn't make it up). Therefore it is hearsay, by definition.

then I asked

So receiving information from someone else = hearsay

Is that what you are saying ?

he said

Jeez! It's like a foreign language.
As has been explained many times...

and valjean said

That's the very definition of hearsay

In the context of this conversation hearsay is anything that you didn’t received directly (which would include the stegosaurus in the museum) because the guy in the museum is just labeling the fossils as authentic because someone told him.

So what you should do is correct those other atheists and explain to them that their understanding of the term hearsay is wrong.

 

[leroy]

Then why ask?



That's a sweeping straw man again, as whether I had a problem would depend on the claim.



I certainly have not, you are again making up sweeping and dishonest straw men, and assigning them to me, when I have not made any such claim. Sweeping unevidenced assertions your modus operandi, not mine. I wonder will you ever tire of pointlessly hammering that square peg into a round hole, and actually address what people post?

Well that is one of the consequences of not providing simple and direct answers. / if you keep your position vague and amigos then chances say that I will misunderstand and make a straw man.

 

[leroy]

Are you still beating your wife?

Yes or No only please...

I am not asking that kind of questions / I am simply asking questions about your views and positions

 

[Sheldon]

The problem is that you comment for the sake of commenting without understanding the context of the conversation.

You're priceless.

(which would include the stegosaurus in the museum) because the guy in the museum is just labeling the fossils as authentic because someone told him.

Still untrue, and I even linked the NHM website showing the extensive list of expert palaeontologists and the universities they worked for, that the museum employs to validate fossils and exhibitions, and to peer review the research validating them. So this is rank dishonesty, yet again.

So what you should do is correct those other atheists and explain to them that their understanding of the term hearsay is wrong.

They know what hearsay means, you have consistently shown you do not, even here again, despite it being explained innumerable times.

Hearsay
noun

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

I can't dumb down the bit you're either ignoring or not grasping, anymore than that (it's in red emboldened letters for you).

I also linked (right at the start) a website listing the methods science uses to substantiate the authenticity of fossils, (you waved it away) I linked the NHM's website which showed the extensive list of experts in the field of palaeontology they use to substantiate their fossils and exhibits, and their credentials and the various prestigious universities across the UK they work for, (again you ignored these facts) Yet you rehash the same tired old canard, your dishonesty on this is manifest to any remotely objective reader.

 

[Sheldon]

Well that is one of the consequences of not providing simple and direct answers. / if you keep your position vague and amigos then chances say that I will misunderstand and make a straw man.

Your inability to understand pretty simple arguments is not an indictment of my arguments. Your dishonesty in assigning claims to others they have not made is likewise, your fault, and no one else's.

 

[Sheldon]

Ok so if you know that I can’t understand complex answers that go beyond YES OR NO why don’t you answer with a simple yes or a simple no?

Are you still beating your wife?

Yes or No only please...

I am not asking that kind of questions / I am simply asking questions about your views and positions

Yes or no please, that's was your rule not mine, no exceptions, are you still beating your wife, yes or no?

 

[Valjean]

From your words (and unless you clarify otherwise) I will assume that you reject these facts….

So which of the facts do you find less likely to be true, so that I can substantiate it?

I reject some, but mainly I find these irrelevant. Even if all were true, it's not valid evidence for the divinity or mission of Christ.
Lot's of religions have legends about their founders, with just as much 'evidence' as the Biblical legend of Christ.

So which of the facts do you find less likely to be true, so that I can substantiate it?
1 jesus was crucified
2 jesus was buried
3 the tomb was found emty
4 the disciples (and others) had experiences that they interpreted as having seen the risen jesus
5 Paul and James converted to Christianity After the death of Jesus.

1: Lots of people died on the cross. Lots of people were named Jesus.
How is this evidence of anything?
2: So what? How is this significant? Most people were buried. How is this evidence of anything?
3: And how do we know this? -- just stories; four different stories, in fact. None corroborated by disinterested parties or by hard evidence. It's hearsay.
If Jesus' tomb was found empty, so what? If someone dug up an empty coffin today, do you think anyone would conclude the corpse was risen from the dead?
4: Perhaps somebody did see something, perhaps they interpreted it to fit their preëxisting narrative. Perhaps they made it up. Perhaps the whole narrative is made up. We have no way to know, since there's no hard supporting evidence. These witnesses, if they exist, can't be interviewed. We have no corroborating testimony from disinterested parties. We have no records from a psych exam.

These are just stories; legends like Muhammad's flight to Jerusalem or Athena emerging from the head of Zeus. There is no corroborating evidence. No law court in the country would accept this story as evidence. Belief, even sincere belief, is not evidence.
5: Source?
Lot's of people convert to lots of different religions. This isn't evidence of the veracity of the religions.