Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Sheldon]

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

Then do so as I am extremely dubious, given that credible biblical scholars think otherwise, and sources for what exactly? Tell me again about my posts being vague.

2 i can show that early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection

Seriously, you can show that an unknown author made an uncorroborated claim, that someone saw something from an era of ignorance and superstition, and subjectively thought unevidenced and inexplicable magic was the best explanation?

3 i can provide a source from an author that didn't "whant it to happen"

Didn't want what to happen, and what author, good grief...

The question is
If I do that would that change anything? Would you atleast move a tinny step towards beliving in the resurrection?.

Seriously you're asking people to assess what they might think if you presented something?

...........or is it a case where it doesn't matter what the evidence is, i will never belive on the resurrection ?

IS it ok with you if people decide for themselves what they do and do not believe, and what they accept as credible evidence to support claims and beliefs?

Only you seem to be refusing to debate your claims because others might not find your claims convincing. Do you see how ludicrous that is? Debate in this forum is not mandatory you can share your beliefs in any number of forums, and you will get a hallelujah and an amen every time, if that is what you want.

 

[KWED]

The point is that the fact that other people from other religions claim that their religion is correct does nothing to falsify Christianity.

Never said it did. However, it does refute your claim that genuine, deeply-held belief is evidence of that belief's truth.

You are quite correct that if an ancient book contains extraordinary tales of gods, monsters, magic, etc, we require independent, corroborating accounts before we accept them as fact.

And yet you do not apply this standard to the Bible. Why is that, do you think?

Then each book falls or stands my it´s own merits. Agree? If you what to claim that the bible is not “good enough” you should provide justification

You have just contradicted yourself. You just claimed that books containing claims of the supernatural require independent corroboration. Now you claim that the book itself is sufficient evidence for its contents (which is demonstrable nonsense)

What evidence would you expect to find, in favor of the resurrection? What “realistic” peace of evidence would convince you that a miracle took place 2000 years ago?

Multiple independent accounts, from unrelated sources would help. But if there was a reasonable, evidence-based, naturalistic explanation for the claim it would still be the more likely. We know that multiple sources can give inaccurate accounts of the same event.

Nobody is telling you accept the gospels (and other books) without question. Just treat the new testament the same way you will treat any other ancient document……….. just explain under what basis do you afirmthat the gosples are not reliable? What arguments would you provide?

I do treat the Bible the same way as I would treat any ancient text containing extraordinary claims of the supernatural. I insist on corroborating accounts from independent sources.
You have already admitted that you treat the claims of the supernatural in the Mabinogion, Norse Sagas and Iliad and Odyssey with extreme scepticism by default. Why do you not apply the same standard to the Bible?

Most of the verifiable historical facts in the are true, so why not giving the gossips the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are likely correct in almost everything?

I have already explained that those other texts include historically and geographically accurate elements, so presumably you give them "the benefit of the doubt" regarding their supernatural claims?
What's that? You don't?
Why the inconsistency?

provide an example

Jesus' body was removed from the tomb by persons unknown.

Ok so what evidence would you accept for “magic” 2000 years ago?

Something that was independently verifiable and testable, that had no possible natural explanation.
What evidence would you accept for the magic in the Mabinogion, Norse Sagas and Iliad & Odyssey?

 

[Sheldon]

Yes and all you have is because other people say so (testimonials)

Nope, this is still untrue. It would take an incredible level of ignorance to actually believe scientific facts are based solely on individual testimony.

So ether testimonials count as evidence (which means that the new testament would also count as evidence)

Or the context is relevant, and a bare subjective claim from an unknown source is not very compelling, even if they are asserting that Jesus once took a nap, but for extraordinary supernatural magic it's a risible standard.

Or testimonials are not evidence (which means that there is no evidence for the autenticicity of those fossils)Which one is it?

False dichotomy fallacy, you may want to look that up as well. In fact if you are serious about debate, you might want to Google common logical fallacies, and learn as many as you can, and then try not to use them ever, let alone relentlessly as you're doing here.

Now the answer to your false dichotomy, as I know you will falsely claim that pointing out it is a false dichotomy is not an answer, even though it absolutely.

Evidence for authenticating fossil is no based solely on subjective testimony. That's why you're claim is such an obvious false dichotomy fallacy.

HERE IS ONE EXPANSIVE EXPLANTION OF THE METHODOLOY USED FOR AUTHENTICATING FOSSILS, WHICH DOES NOT RELY SOLELY ON SUBJECTIVE TESTIMONY.

Note that I have posted that link half a dozen times in response to your posts, and that claim, and you have ignored it each and every time, what do you imagine that infers, when you repeat the claim? Try hard now...I look forward to another of your dishonest bare denials...

 

[KWED]

If Paul (and other Christians) honestly and sincerely believed in the resurrection, then he was not lying, which means that any theory that implies that Christians lied about the resurrection should be discarded.

Absolutely not. Paul must have learned about the resurrection story from other people, perhaps several times removed from the origin. His believing the story has no bearing on whether the original story was true or not.
By your argument, because many people genuinely believe the US election was stolen, it therefore was. Which is obvious nonsense.

In other words it´s not an argument for the resurrection, it’s an argument against alternative theories that imply that that Christians laid.

No it isn't - as you have been shown several times.

 

[KWED]

I think that Christians honestly and sincerely believe in the resurrection because that is what they were taught by the Church to believe.

How do you know that Paul believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus?
I do not think that all Christians believe that Paul taught a 'bodily' resurrection.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

"Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. Legends without a historical basis were created by the early church; these included the empty tomb and described Jesus returning in his original body to eat and talk with his followers."

I am fully enjoying the delicious irony of you explaining to another religionist why their genuinely heartfelt beliefs, that they insist are based on evidence and reason, are wrong.
You couldn't make it up!

 

[KWED]

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

There is literally only the accounts in the Bible. A book that you have admitted contains accounts of events that didn't actually happen!

 

[Sheldon]

I am not too familiar with the illiad and odyssey but sure

1 if the author intended to report real historical events

Nope, the intent of the author is merely context, it lends no credence to the claims of the author.

2 and if the mayority of verifiable facts are true

Seriously? If it's true it is true, wow?

The yes we should give the sutjor the benefit of the doubt.

No, and every time you post benefit of the doubt, all I see is SUBJECTIVE BIAS.

Obviously i am talking about specific facts like the names of the high priests, the names of the political leaders, the descriptions of the towns and villages arround, etc.

These are claims not facts, you seem to really struggle with the distinction, even though it is not remotely a subtle one. Only one r in around as well.

This is not weird apologetic stuff,

Oh well that's different, I didn't know your subjective opinion endorsed your subjective opinion. this merry go round is making me dizzy now.

this is how historians treat historical documents, if the author is proven to be reliable in the things that can be verified, then the ajthor would have the benefit of the doubt.

1. Credible historians never make supernatural claims.
2. Whilst the credibility of the author is context, it is an appeal to authority fallacy to assert it alone lends credence to any authors claims, Sir Isaac Newton is credible, he believed in astrology and alchemy, see how that works.
3. You are again claiming that facts support the unknown authors of biblical texts, while simultaneously claiming they need the benefit of the doubt, can you really not see the contradiction?

Appart from miracles , do you have any other problem with the gospels (historically speacking)?.......

Yes, if the claims are not supported by sufficient objective evidence.

if we change miracles for "events that where interpreted as miracles by stupid bronce age people" would you be ok with accepting the gospels as historical documents?

No, because I don't accept sweeping unevidenced and vaguely defined claims. What exactly are you claiming is historically accurate, and what objective evidence supports the claim?

 

[Sheldon]

Ok so what would you accept as evidence?

You're asking the wrong question, the right question is what evidence would you find compelling, you're not going to like the answer, it is sufficient objective evidence for the specific claims being made.

If someone trully rose from the dead 2000y ago , what evidence would you expect to have?

You are now asking atheists to evidence your beliefs for you, I will never understand why apologists don't see how ludicrous this is?

 

[KWED]

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

2 i can show that early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection

3 i can provide a source from an author that didn't "whant it to happen"

And yet, you didn't.

I asked you what those sources were. I didn't ask you if you could claim there were such sources - you already made that claim. Which was why I was asking for the sources!

 

[KWED]

Yes and all you have is because other people say so (testimonials)


So ether testimonials count as evidence (which means that the new testament would also count as evidence)

Or testimonials are not evidence (which means that there is no evidence for the autenticicity of those fossils)

Which one is it?

Oh ffs!
It. Is. Not. Merely. Unsupported. Testimonials.

There is physical evidence that can be independently tested and compared to the results of others.

It seems unlikely that you actually believe this line of argument because it would require such a lack of intelligence that you would not be able to operate the device you are using to post on here.
Therefore the conclusion is the that you are simply trolling - which is naughty. Plus your argument necessarily means that you must also reject the Bible as a reliable source, which I suspect is a position you don't actually hold. So you have inadvertently provided a refutation to your claim that people won't lie about what they believe.

 

[KWED]

I am not too familiar with the illiad and odyssey but sure

1 if the author intended to report real historical events

2 and if the mayority of verifiable facts are true

The yes we should give the sutjor the benefit of the doubt.

Obviously i am talking about specific facts like the names of the high priests, the names of the political leaders, the descriptions of the towns and villages arround, etc.

This is not weird apologetic stuff, this is how historians treat historical documents, if the author is proven to be reliable in the things that can be verified, then the ajthor would have the benefit of the doubt.

Cool.
So you now believe in magic cyclops, dragons and ice giants as well as magic Jesus.

 

[KWED]

If someone trully rose from the dead 2000y ago , what evidence would you expect to have?

There wouldn't be any objective evidence. Only anecdote.
If there were enough genuinely independent accounts from unrelated sources then it would have to be considered as a reasonable possibility, but it could never be claimed as "historical fact", especially if there were reasonable natural explanations for the events described.

Remember that even in the Bible there is no account of Jesus actually recovering from confirmed death. Only hearsay accounts of people seeing who they claim was Jesus alive after they believed him to be dead.

 

[KWED]

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

Interesting that when I asked the same, he replied that he could provide them, but if he did I would only dismiss them.

 

[KWED]

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

The crucifixion is generally dated as 33AD. Corinthians was written around 55 AD. That is over 20 years later. Moreover it was written by someone who was not present at the events described, so is hearsay testimony long after the event.

So we have confirmed that your only source is a collection of texts, written years after the event, by people who were not there, and who wanted the account to be true, and whose aim was to promote that account.
It's like some future historian finding a blog by that shaman viking bloke, written today, and saying "Look, he is saying the election was stolen, so it must have been".

 

[Sheldon]

I didn't ignore it.

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

Yes I have, as that is the methodology, science would not accept them as fossils without at least satisfying those requirements, and that goes for the Natural History Museum as well, and they have assembled a complete Stegosaur skeleton from verified fossils, and their policy, which I cited previously, is to clearly label any bones in their displays that are reconstructed, i.e. not fossils.

So why are you still falsely claiming the authenticity is based solely on unevidenced subjective testimony?

 

[KWED]

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

Elements of the books are indeed based on real life events and characters.
And who knows. Maybe she is just keeping it secret? Do you have any evidence she isn't?

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

Question begging. We don't know that. They might have knowingly been including stuff that didn't happen as a literary tool. Remember that you have already insisted that this is the case with the Bible.

2 if the author was correct in most verifiable details

Which "verifiable details" are you referring to?
Also, bear in mind that there are accurate, verifiable historical details in the Quran (as well as fewer supernatural claims), so presumably you accept that book as at least as genuine as the Bible - even more so?

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

More question begging.
You are trying to show that it is reliable, so claiming that we should simply accept it is reliable as a means of determining its reliability is just nonsense.

 

[KWED]

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

No he isn't. He never met Jesus nor witnessed any of the events. His writings date from many years after the death of Jesus.

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?

A contemporary source is one written around the time of the actual event described. Even today, accounts written 30-80 years after are not "contemporary", and especially so in a time when most transmission was oral and therefore more unreliable.

The reality is that every source for Jesus' life is hearsay long after the event and there cannot be claimed as "historically accurate".

 

[Sheldon]

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

He never met Jesus, his accounts were written decades after the fact, so they are not contemporary accounts.

The gospels where written within 30-60 years after the crucifixion,

So not contemporary accounts then, and decades after the fact, and from unknown sources, exactly as I said.

some of the witnesses where stll alive.....

.

Oh really, and you know this how?

to me this counts as contemporary, .....

As much as I'd like to lend credence to your subjective unevidenced vague assertions for living eyewitnesses, I'm going to remain dubious until you demonstrate something approaching objective evidence.

but I am curios what exactly do you mean by contemporary?

OK I am going to say this once and only once, when I use a word you can guarantee that unless I say otherwise it means what the dictionary says it means.

Nothing in the NT was written during Jesus's lifetime, hence they are not contemporary accounts. They were written, as you have said yourself, at least decades after the fact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

We certainly shouldn't take them as Gospel.

BTW: out of all the third-hand miracle accounts from other religions, how many do you accept?

 

[leroy]

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

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

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.

Ok then you seemed to missinderstood me.

I do not claim to have absolute evidence for God nor the resurrection .... such that there are no other possibilities.