Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[leroy]

There is a broad consensus among historians only for an historical Jesus and the crucifixion, as has been explained enough times now surely. Your 75% of scholars claim was bs, it is the subjective opinion of a Christian author, and his data has never been peer reviewed, and as has been explained, he has pointedly ignore requests by expert historians to submit his data so it can be peer reviewed. It's no one else's fault you are woefully ignorant of the methods employed by expert historians, and are doggedly biased to boot.



It is a story based on second and third hand hearsay, it is as far from an historical fact as one can imagine, and you claimed it was "known to a high degree of certainty". Now when it is made clear how woefully wrong this claim was, you respond with irrelevant demands for studies? You simply haven't a clue. If you want to read some expert historians who aren't peddling apologetics then do so, it's up to you whether you want to educate yourself beyond blind adherence to archaic superstition.

I am just askig, if you think the 75% is wrong, then what would the correct percentage be (using a methodology that you would agree with?)

 

[leroy]

What sources, what on earth are you talking about, I haven't mentioned any other sources, and I quite carefully found and post criteria expert historians use to critically examine sources, and you ignored it repeatedly. Now you are making up duplicitous straw men about hypothetical sources I have not even mentioned, you're priceless.

Here's my post again, either address what it says or ignore it, but don't waste bandwidth with dishonest and irrelevant straw man red herrings. Show some integrity and you might learn something.




For a start you could follow the link to my post, and look at your claims that it was responding to, for proper context, a level of integrity and courtesy you seem unable to muster.

Sheldon said: ↑
The original texts of the gospels had existed without names. The Church Fathers assigned the names, about three centuries after the alleged events, The gospels are not eyewitness accounts; none of the gospel writers ever directly claimed to be an eyewitness. Nor was Paul, who neither knew nor even met Jesus, and his claim are hearsay.

Again, my response is, that anonymous sources written by non-witnesses are still valid sources and not necesairly hearsay / it´s arbitrary do reject a source just because it is anonymous or written by non witesses, specially because you only do this with stuff that contradict your world view.

 

[leroy]

It was your claim, you cited a Christian author, offering a subjective opinion, and claimed it showed 75% of scholars supported the claim for an empty tomb, when it cleary shows no such thing. I posted an article from a very well known expert biblical historian, (Dr Carrier) carefully explaining why it was woefully biased. It was your claim, no one has to disprove it, and yet even after compelling evidence is offered, your only response is to demand evidence to the contrary, despite the fact it has been explained relentlessly to you, that this type of argument is a known logical fallacy, called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Your claim was that the empty tomb, among other claims, was "known to a high degree of certainty" this is entirely false.

You claim that the only things where we find consensus is that Jesus was crucified………….all I am asking is for a source supporting that claim. (Obviously a peer review and unbiased source because those are your standards)

Your claim was that the empty tomb, among other claims, was "known to a high degree of certainty" this is entirely

And I provided multiple arguments supporting that claim, the fact that you ignored them rather than refuting them, strongly suggests that the arguments are pretty good.,

 

[Subduction Zone]

No historian would ever make such a ridiculous claim (I challenge you to quote 1) you might find historians who say that 2 different books in the bible are “dependent” but not for the reasons you exposed.

I agree that the sources have a bias, but then we have 6 independent sources with a bias (the sources are still independent)

That is because your ridiculous analogy has never occurred. The failure is yours by using a flawed analogy, not mine. For an analogy such as yours to work it would be needed to be based on events that actually happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I provided multiple arguments supporting that claim, the fact that you ignored them rather than refuting them, strongly suggests that the arguments are pretty good.,

When a person provides poor arguments there is no need to respond.

 

[Sheldon]

No historian would ever make such a ridiculous claim (I challenge you to quote 1) you might find historians who say that 2 different books in the bible are “dependent” but not for the reasons you exposed.

I already showed you a list of criteria historians use to subject sources to critical scrutiny, you seem intent on ignoring these.

I agree that the sources have a bias, but then we have 6 independent sources with a bias (the sources are still independent)

Biased by adherence to and in favour of a single set of beliefs, is not independent of the core claims of that belief.

 

[Sheldon]

Quote any scholar that would say that he will only consider sources outside the bible // scholars wouldn’t take such a naïve position, only fanatic internet atheist would say something as dumb and ignorant as that.,

Well done you completely ignored my post:

"I said historians, and no historical scholar would accept a source as independent if it could not be substantiated outside of biblical claims, that is axiomatic. You don't see to know the difference between a theological scholar who also holds a subjective belief, and an historical scholar whose work has been peer reviewed. Which of course amply explains your embarrassing gaff over your claim that 75% of "scholars" belief the biblical myth of an empty tomb, since the Christian author you cited has not submitted that work for peer review by other historians, indeed he has refused requests to do so, as I evidenced in an earlier post, and you ignored.

Not all scholars are always voicing historical evidence, one can be an expert on Harry Potter, this does not mean mean their opinion that wizards are real is scholarly, you seem unable to grasp this."

Though of course by now, I think we can all see why you're keen to simply move on with naught but hand waving.

You didn’t answer to my original claim, that is why I ignored your post

Of course I answered it, you just didn't like the answer so you ignored it. It's your MO after all, misdirection, duplicity, and evasion.

 

[leroy]

He wasn't making any historical claims? He was offering his expert opinion on your authors claims, he is an expert historian, he pointed out that the work of the author you cited was never submitted for peer review thus it falls woefully short of the standard historians would accept, the article gave expansive explanation as to why, but you have ignored these again, failing to acknowledge your error, and laughably demanding that a personal opinion be peer reviewed? Do you even know what peer review is, or how and when it is applied?



Yes, and he pointed out the bias of the author in the claims you cited, instead of sulking because this expert happens not to share your beliefs, you might want to read his criticises, and acknowledge what they mean for your BS claim. Sadly you seem to have settled into this "nuh uh" response as your MO to all arguments.



For what, Carrier was not making any historical claims?



Are you saying Carrier's criticism were incorrect? So you are asserting the author you linked has in fact submitted his work for peer review? This is great news, you might want to email Dr Carrier and let him know. Dr Carrier by the way was offering an expert opinion exposing the flaws in the work of the author you cited, not making any historical claims himself, opinions are not peer reviewed, why would they be? If you think there are expert historians out there who accept the claims your author used, despite refusing to submit his data for peer review, even after multiple requests from expert historians like Dr Carrier, then you're again woefully mistaken.

If you have a peer review source showing that the majority of qualified scholars reject the empty tomb, you would have a point.

But all you have is a blog post from someone just sending random shots / who is not even offering the correct number and the correct percentage

Are you saying Carrier's criticism were incorrect?

I am not saying that he is incorrect; I am saying that his criticism is not that relevant, he is just attacking minor details.

 

[leroy]

I already showed you a list of criteria historians use to subject sources to critical scrutiny, you seem intent on ignoring these.

and you arbitrary concluded that the NT doesn’t meet that criteria of scrutiny

 

[leroy]

Of course I answered it, you just didn't like the answer so you ignored it. It's your MO after all, misdirection, duplicity, and evasion.

answers such as: No No , its just hearsay because I say so are not appropriate responses.

 

[Sheldon]

I am just askig, if you think the 75% is wrong, then what would the correct percentage be (using a methodology that you would agree with?)

The correct percentage of what? The question makes no sense?

The 75% relates to articles (allegedly 3400 of them) not authors, since the Christian author you cited has refused requests to submit his data for peer review, we don't and can't have any clue what authors he drew his conclusion from, how often for example were the same authors used, how many of the authors were expert historians and how many were religious apologists offering subjective beliefs, how much weight was given to people expressing subjective religious beliefs, as opposed to expert historians using peer reviewed work, etc etc etc.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
I already showed you a list of criteria historians use to subject sources to critical scrutiny, you seem intent on ignoring these.

and you arbitrary concluded that the NT doesn’t meet that criteria of scrutiny

Obviously not, since the list is not mine, and nor is it based on random choice or personal whim, but on an article explaining the methodology expert historians use to critically evaluate historical sources, I even provided a citation for you to check, which you obviously did not.

Why do you think such relentless dishonesty is of any value as argument?

 

[Sheldon]

Of course I answered it, you just didn't like the answer so you ignored it. It's your MO after all, misdirection, duplicity, and evasion.

and you arbitrary concluded that the NT doesn’t meet that criteria of scrutiny

answers such as: No No , its just hearsay because I say so are not appropriate responses.

More rank dishonesty, since that is not remotely what I said, so here it is a third time then, so everyone can see that you have not only ignored it, but misrepresented what i said three times.

Well done...

Well done you completely ignored my post:

"I said historians not scholars, and no historian would accept a source as independent if it could not be substantiated outside of biblical claims, that is axiomatic. You don't seem to know the difference between a theological scholar who also holds a subjective belief, and an expert historian, whose work has been peer reviewed. Which of course amply explains your embarrassing gaff over your claim that 75% of "scholars" belief the biblical myth of an empty tomb, since the Christian author you cited has not submitted that work for peer review by other historians, indeed he has refused requests to do so, as I evidenced in an earlier post, and you ignored.

Not all scholars are always voicing historical evidence, one can be an expert on Harry Potter, this does not mean mean their opinion that wizards are real is scholarly, you seem unable to grasp this."

Though of course by now, I think we can all see why you're keen to simply move on with naught but hand waving.

 

[leroy]

That is because your ridiculous analogy has never occurred. The failure is yours by using a flawed analogy, not mine. For an analogy such as yours to work it would be needed to be based on events that actually happened.

You are the one who is claiming that the documents of the new testament are only 1 source because of the Council of Nicea. …. I am just pointing the fact that no historian would argue something as naïve as you just did.

 

[leroy]

When a person provides poor arguments there is no need to respond.

Sounds like a convenient excuse.

 

[leroy]

Biased by adherence to and in favour of a single set of beliefs, is not independent of the core claims of that belief.

Straw man, I said that they are independent from each other (they didn’t copied from each other nor from a common source)

It is pathetic that you insist in your semantic game rather than addressing the actual point.

 

[leroy]

The correct percentage of what? The question makes no sense?

The 75% relates to articles (allegedly 3400 of them) not authors, since the Christian author you cited has refused requests to submit his data for peer review, we don't and can't have any clue what authors he drew his conclusion from, how often for example were the same authors used, how many of the authors were expert historians and how many were religious apologists offering subjective beliefs, how much weight was given to people expressing subjective religious beliefs, as opposed to expert historians using peer reviewed work, etc etc etc.

has refused requests to submit his data for peer review,

You don’t have evidence for that, but assuming is true, so what? you are making a big deal out of something small.


If Richard Career would have published a peer reviewed article where he shows that less than 75% of scholars accept the empty tomb, he would have a point.

 

[leroy]

Obviously not, since the list is not mine, and nor is it based on random choice or personal whim, but on an article explaining the methodology expert historians use to critically evaluate historical sources, I even provided a citation for you to check, which you obviously did not.

Why do you think such relentless dishonesty is of any value as argument?

Again, i accept the methodology that expert historians use.

You burden is to show that the NT fails when that methodology is applied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are the one who is claiming that the documents of the new testament are only 1 source because of the Council of Nicea. …. I am just pointing the fact that no historian would argue something as naïve as you just did.

Please, now you are projecting. Historians have not run into this problem. So you can't say what historians would say. That is merely your opinion. I disagree with you on that claim also. Historians would understand how if you put the sources through a filter the filter in effect becomes the one source. You either do not understand this or you do not like it. Either way, you only have one source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds like a convenient excuse.

Not really and it appears that he did respond and explain your errors. The odds are that you ignored it because you could not deal with it.