Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Sheldon]

Yes I have been told many times, but you haven’t provided any evidence for the authenticity of the fossils (stegosaurus in the museum) apart form testimonies.

That's another falsehood, I have provided it several times, you ignored it, and then continued to falsely deny it.

HOW TO TELL IF A FOSSIL IS FAKE

 

[Sheldon]

Most of the verifiable historical things that are reported in the gospels happen to be true;

I doubt it, but since all you've offered is another bare assertion, there is no data to examine.

this is why I trust the gospels as reliable historical documents.

You can trust whatever you want, but that is just yet another unevidenced subjective and biased claim. There is not one single contemporary account in the NT.

This means that at the very least they deserve the benefit of the doubt with stuff that is impossible to verify.

I don't agree, if something is impossible to verify, and makes claims for supernatural magic, and is based on second and thirdhand hearsay, from unknown authors, then your claim is risible, clearly.

 

[Sheldon]

That’s not the case for Paul and early Christians, they could have avoided prison and death by simply denying Jesus,

That's an unevidenced subjective claim.

The question is which of these alternatives do you pick and why is it better than resurrection?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, no one need provide any alternative, the claim is yours, and so is the burden of proof.

 

[Sheldon]

That was not my point, but the answer is that there are multiple lines of evidence for the resurrection.

Yet you haven't offered anything but the unsubstantiated anecdotal hearsay in from the unknown authors of the NT.

Again that is a literally tool, the author is using symbolic language

I assume you mean literary tool, and it's such an obvious special pleading fallacy to single out one resurrection as true, and the others as false, it's hard to believe you can't see your bias.

 

[Sheldon]

If the author claims that something is real, then we must trust him,

So Harry Potter is real then? How about the wizard of Oz? You are funny.

 

[leroy]

↑

So should we reject all historical documents that where written by "third hand" ?

Is that what I said?

Is that what I said?E]

Well it seemed to me that you did say that,... but if you read closely to my comment you will note a question mark at the end. (Implying that i was asking a question)

I didn't offer a view, only disbelieved yours, for the reasons stated, sadly you won't address them honestly.

Before adressing them "honestly" i need to understand your objections.

But you always refuse to answer my questions. Everytimw I ask for clarification about your claims and views you avoid direct answers. .... so what do you expect from me ?

 

[leroy]

Rubbish, provide a citation for that claim right now please.

Sure 1 Corinthians 15:3 (which afirns the resurrection) has been dated by scholars within 3 years after the crucifixion

Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.”
Does the “1 Corinthians 15 creed” date to about AD 30?

So we do have early sources for the resurrection, the burial of jesus, the empty tomb and other relevant facts.

 

[leroy]

That's another falsehood, I have provided it several times, you ignored it, and then continued to falsely deny it.

HOW TO TELL IF A FOSSIL IS FAKE

I didn't ignore it.

You havent shown that the stegosaurus was subjected to those tests described in your source.

 

[leroy]

leroy said: ↑
If the author claims that something is real, then we must trust him,

So Harry Potter is real then? How about the wizard of Oz? You are funny.

NO, the author of harry potter didn't intended to write real history, his intent was to write science fiction.


Rembember my claim is
1 if the author intended to write real history

2 if the author was correct in most verifiable details

The the document is reliable and deserves the benefit of the doubt

Harry potter rails the test (atleast point 1) point 2 i am not sure, since I haven't reed the books. / the gospels do pas the test.

 

[leroy]

There is not one single contemporary account in the NT.

.

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


The gospels where written within 30-60 years after the crucifixion, some of the witnesses where stll alive...... to me this counts as contemporary, .....but I am curios what exactly do you mean by contemporary? Whats your tolerance in terns of time for you to call it "contemporary " where do you draw the line?

 

[leroy]

I
and is based on second and thirdhand hearsay, from unknown authors, then your claim is risible, clearly.

And can you prove that the gospels where written by second and thirdhand hearsay?


Please explain what you mean by second and third hand.

 

[KWED]

Most of the verifiable historical things that are reported in the gospels happen to be true

One of the key elements, the Roman census requiring Joseph to return to his city of birth, is demonstrably wrong.
1. There wasn't a Roman census around that time.
2. Roman censuses didn't require people to return to the city of their birth.

 

[KWED]

The same skepticism could be used to reject any other claim, how do you know that Richard Dawkins truly believes in the theory of evolution?

I don't. He could be a secret creationist doing it simply for the money and fame.

How do you know he is an atheist? Maybe he is a flatt earthier YEC that lies about his views for whatever reason.

Indeed. It would be difficult to understand, but it could be.

With Paul based on his actions and claims, it is fair to assume that he truly believed in the resurrection, just like it is fair to assume that Richard dawkins believed in the theory of evolution, sure anyone of them would be lying for some mysterious reason.

People misrepresenting their beliefs for political or financial gain are pretty common, not least in religious circles. How many TV evangelists have been shown to be self-serving hypocrites? How many political ideologists have been ignoring their lofty ideals in private.
It really isn't a hard concept to grasp - unless cognitive dissonance comes into play regarding deeply held beliefs. It is entirely understandable why you would feel the need to reject outright any suggestion that some of the people involved in establishing Christianity were motivated by things other than simply a genuine belief in the story.
And remember, I am not claiming that it must have been that way, only that it is a possibility that must be entertained - just like your suggestion of Dawkins being a closet YEC.

 

[KWED]

Who are you to judge? That is only your personal opinion and unless you have proof it is a bald assertion.

You want proof that my opinion is actually my opinion?
I have literally no idea what you are asking of me there.

Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God/Prophet

You have no proof of that. It is merely your opinion.

and He was the author of His own scriptures.

Probably.

Baha'u'llah was All-knowing so He knew everything about the Bible, what was true and what was false.

And yet he repeated false claims made in the Bible, so he clearly was not "all knowing".

No, I have not accepted that what I have merely belief. I have evidence so I know, I not only believe.

And yet you have earlier admitted to not having any evidence.
So once again, we go round the circle. I will ask you what that "evidence" is, and you will list unsupported beliefs. I will explain why that isn't evidence. You will accept that. Later, you will claim to have evidence again, etc ad nauseam...

I know that what I believe is true

Wrong. You believe what you believe is true.

and there is nothing you can do about it

It is telling that you admit that no amount of evidence or rational argument could ever change your mind.
Kinda sums up your position really. You should try being more open-minded.

 

[Sheldon]

So should we reject all historical documents that where written by "third hand" ? Or should we reject only those sources that contradict your view?

Sheldon↑
Is that what I said?

leroy
Well it seemed to me that you did say that,... but if you read closely to my comment you will note a question mark at the end. (Implying that i was asking a question)

It was not remotely what I said, and if you look closely you will see my post had a question mark at the end as well, see how that works? Here is my post...

Sheldon said: ↑
1. You don't have any sources. only second or third hand hearsay from unknown authors.
2. Even IF you could establish an empty tomb, as an historical fact, that would not remotely evidence anything supernatural.

Why on earth would it?

note I never remotely said what you then asked, so I asked you is that what I said, well is it, that is my answer to your dishonest and leading question? So the inference is clearly why ask me, in case you're still struggling.

Let's try an example, so do you think we should kill anyone who doesn't share out views? Note how the hypothetical is a dishonest and leading, like yours was, because I didn't remotely say it.

Before adressing them "honestly" i need to understand your objections.

Which words are tripping you up?
1. You don't have any sources. only second or third hand hearsay from unknown authors.
2. Even IF you could establish an empty tomb, as an historical fact, that would not remotely evidence anything supernatural.

So when you claim to have sources that isn't true, only hearsay long after the fact, from unknown "sources". You have failed to address this, you have completely ignored point 2.

 

[KWED]

Maybe there is no 'rational atheist' that makes that claim but what makes you think that all atheists are rational?

The simple act of assessing claims on the bass of evidence is a rational act. By definition, all atheists are rational.

I know an atheist who makes that claim

Link.

and where there is one there are probably more.

Fallacy of composition.

You cannot speak for all atheists.

I can speak for rational thought.

Studies vary. According to this article, 84 percent of the world population has a faith

So you admit that your 93% claim was misleading.

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists). Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia

But that contradicts the study you just cited! Do you know how this works?

That's true. Some atheists think that some religionists are delusional and the rest of the atheists just think we are incorrect in what we believe.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
. There isn't even any objective evidence that a resurrection is even possible.

Again how can anyone know if you are not 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.

I provided reasons for why the gospels deserve the benefit of the doubt, why dobt you refute those arguments?

I did, your "reasons" were nothing but your biased subjective opinion, try reading my posts more carefully, or at all. I have explained why they are unreliable, even for ordinary or historical claims, for claims as extraordinary as a supernatural resurrection, the bar demonstrably would be much higher, unless one held an a prior emotional stake in the belief, and used religious faith of course, for the record I do not, and I subject all claims to the same standard, that sufficient (this is contextual) objective evidence be demonstrated to support them.

 

[Sheldon]

If you think that the gospels are science ficción (like Harry Potter) then develope your argument

I have never claimed the gospels are science fiction, or even implied it, again I have to ask, is English your first language? Also it's fiction not ficcion (sic), and Harry Potter is not science fiction. So all in all...

 

[Sheldon]

3 yes the resurrection has explanatory power. It exolains why early Christians where claiming that jesus rose from the dead.

No it doesn't, magic is not an explanation, it is presenting a mystery as a solution to an unevidenced anecdotal claim. It also has Occam spinning in his grave.

4 explanatory scope refers to the number of things that the hypothesis explains , (1) the resurrection explains the empty tomb , (2) the belief in the resurrection, (3) the sudden convertion of Paul, (4) the rise of early christianity etc. (No other naturalistic alternative explains athus much)

It doesn't explain anything.

1. You have not presented any objective evidence there was an empty tomb, but claiming it could only be emptied by inexplicable magic is not an explanation of anything.
2, 3 and 4. Seriously? The belief explains the belief, priceless.

(No other naturalistic alternative explains athus much)

Firstly that is another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, please look that up, and try and understand that it is irrational to imply a belief or claim gains credence because we don't have an alternative claim or evidence.

Secondly any natural explanation is by definition more probable, and for pretty obvious reasons I'd have thought. However here is a list:

1. The body was removed for reasons unknown.
2. The body was deliberately removed to give credence to a supernatural claim.
3. There was no tomb, and the story is fabricated, either partially or wholly.
4. The tomb was never empty, and someone made the story up, and named false eye witnesses decades after the fact.
5. The body was removed for nefarious purposes, by persons unknown.

Note that off the top of my head, all of those don't require any unexplained magic, like resurrections, and ipso fact they are more probable than unevidenced claims for a resurrection, since we know they are all at least possible.

NB please note possible, and probable are not the same.

 

[KWED]

The evidence for the empty tomb is conclusive

No it isn't. You still only have anecdote from a single source with a vested interest.

The empty tomb is evidence for the resurrection, specifically it´s a correct prediction, “if Jesus resurrected we would expect to have an empty tomb”

"If some persons unknown removed his body, we would expect to have an empty tomb".
Not only is this a correct prediction, but more importantly it does not require any unproven supernatural element. Also, the Bible itself accepts this as a possibility with sufficient motive.
So, faced with the two claims, one is far more likely than the other.

it doesn’t matter if you believe in the resurrection or in an alternative naturalistic hypothesis, in either case you have to claim that something extraordinary happened, something that has only been reported once.

1. People removing a body from a tomb is not "extraordinary", merely unusual.
2. Extraordinary (and unusual) events are commonplace and always have naturalistic explanations when there is a known explanation. There has never been a known supernatural explanation for anything.