Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Sheldon]

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

The gospels were assigned names arbitrarily by the early Christians who decided what books were to be canonised and placed in the bible, many of the gospels authors names are made up, the actual authorship is unknown. Have you ever heard of the First council of Nicaea, or the Nicene Creed?

"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."

Paul never met Jesus.

Also:

"The Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded. These religious gospels–the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Luke–recount the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of a Jew named Jesus who spoke Aramaic. There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities, and were later translated into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic."

<CITATION>

 

[leroy]

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...

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.



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.

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.

What can I say, you really seem to be implying that second /third hand sources and sources written by unknown authors should be rejected.

But feel free ro correct me

you have completely ignored point 2

Because I have no idea what you mean by evidence

The empty tomb would be a correct prediction for the resurrection hypothesis. (Wether if correct predictions counts as evidence in your own peronal mind is still a mystery for me)

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Well if you're just going to use facts, and rational arguments that's hardly fair.

 

[leroy]

The gospels were assigned names arbitrarily by the early Christians who decided what books were to be canonised and placed in the bible, many of the gospels authors names are made up, the actual authorship is unknown. Have you ever heard of the First council of Nicaea, or the Nicene Creed?

"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."

Paul never met Jesus.

Also:

"The Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded. These religious gospels–the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Luke–recount the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of a Jew named Jesus who spoke Aramaic. There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities, and were later translated into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic."

<CITATION>

That is very interesting, but none if that proves thst the gospels where written by second/third hand hearsay.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

FYI, there is no such thing as absolute evidence, only a tipping point for compelling evidence where it would become epistemologically absurd to deny or disbelieve something, like species evolution for example.

 

[leroy]

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.

Ohhh but thst is exactly what we have , the new testament is not "a book" the new testament are many independent "books"/documents written each by a different author in a different place and different date.

For example the gospels and Paul are independent sources . And both claim the resurrection of jesus. So we do have multiple sources.

And there are no realistic naturalistic explanations for the facts surrounding the resurrection

The facts being
1 Jesus died on the cross
2 Jesus was buried
3 the tomb was found emty
4 some early Christians (paul James Peter etc.)saw something that they interpreted as having seen
5 the sudden rise of the Christian movement shortly after the death of jesus

(These are facts that most scholars accept)

 

[leroy]

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

If a miracle from any religion is atestesred in multiple independent documents where the authors have been proven to be reliable and honestly trying to testify what really happened. I would accept thas as "good evidence " for that miracle.

 

[Sheldon]

What can I say, you really seem to be implying that second /third hand sources and sources written by unknown authors should be rejected.

What can I say, your command of English is execrable if you think that.

But feel free ro correct me

Thanks, but I understand how debate works.

Because I have no idea 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.

The empty tomb would be a correct prediction for the resurrection hypothesis.

You still seem to think repeating your subjective bias is worthy debate? Even though it has been explained to you that your original unevidenced assertion can't even be demonstrated as possible, and a list of alternative explanations provided, all of which we know are objectively possible.

(Wether if correct predictions counts as evidence in your own peronal mind is still a mystery for me)

It's not correct just because simply assert that it is. I am however prepared to believe that a sound epistemological rationale for belief is a mystery to you, that much has been clear for some time.

 

[Sheldon]

That is very interesting, but none if that proves thst the gospels where written by second/third hand hearsay.

So they wrote them in a different language to the one used in that country at that time for a wheeze I suppose? Paul never met Jesus, so perhaps you can explain why someone relating stories they've had from other people, about a third party they ever met, and after that party was deceased, are not third hand?

Lets try bullet points;

1. @leroy says something, that is first hand.
2. Someone claims @leroy said something, that is second hand.
3. Someone claims someone witnessed @leroy saying something, that is third hand.

I know you like hand waving away real evidence, but here it is again anyway, lets see if you can offer something beyond bare denial?

"The Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded. These religious gospels–the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Luke–recount the life, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection of a Jew named Jesus who spoke Aramaic. There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities, and were later translated into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic."

The link is in the original post for context.

 

[Sheldon]

Ohhh but thst is exactly what we have , the new testament is not "a book" the new testament are many independent "books"/documents written each by a different author in a different place and different date.

I don't think you have any grasp of what he meant by independent sources, but the Council of Nicaea decided what went into the bible, what was canonical and what not, they are not an independent source, and the gospel authorships are largely unknown, the names assigned arbitrarily after the fact, and there are no contemporary records, the earliest we have are decades after the fact.

For example the gospels and Paul are independent sources . And both claim the resurrection of jesus. So we do have multiple sources.

Someone believed a written claim, and repeated in writing, really?

And there are no realistic naturalistic explanations for the facts surrounding the resurrection

The facts being
1 Jesus died on the cross
2 Jesus was buried
3 the tomb was found emty
4 some early Christians (paul James Peter etc.)saw something that they interpreted as having seen
5 the sudden rise of the Christian movement shortly after the death of jesus

1. Someone dying isn't remotely evidence for a supernatural resurrection.
2. Someone being buried isn't remotely evidence for a supernatural resurrection.
3. That's an unevidenced claim, you can't even cite a reliable source, and an empty tomb isn't remotely evidence for a supernatural resurrection.
4. All you have done is repeat a claim, and assigned a string of names to it.
5. People believing claims is not evidence for those claims, again this is the very definition of an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If a miracle from any religion is atestesred in multiple independent documents where the authors have been proven to be reliable and honestly trying to testify what really happened. I would accept thas as "good evidence " for that miracle.

Not the question I asked. We were talking about the reliability of third-hand testimony.

 

[Sheldon]

If a miracle from any religion is atestesred in multiple independent documents where the authors have been proven to be reliable and honestly trying to testify what really happened. I would accept thas as "good evidence " for that miracle.

How many independent sources outside of your religion verify its claims for miracles, let alone document it? Be a dear and provide a citation or two for me.

Do you believe in astrology and alchemy, or unitarian Christianity? Or are you saying Sir Isaac Newton is not reliable or honest?

 

[KWED]

Ohhh but thst is exactly what we have , the new testament is not "a book" the new testament are many independent "books"/documents written each by a different author in a different place and different date.

For example the gospels and Paul are independent sources . And both claim the resurrection of jesus. So we do have multiple sources.

If you are genuinely claiming that the New Testament is a collection if independent, unrelated sources, then you are sadly misinformed.
All the different parts of the NT were written by people promoting the idea of a magical Jesus. An idea that probably came from a single, original source.

And there are no realistic naturalistic explanations for the facts surrounding the resurrection

Yes there are. Are you deaf?

The facts being
1 Jesus died on the cross

Naturalistic explanation:
A historical character now known a "Jesus" was executed by the Romans, possibly for sedition, rebellion, etc.

2 Jesus was buried

NE: Dead people are often buried.

3 the tomb was found emty

The body was removed by someone.

4 some early Christians (paul James Peter etc.)saw something that they interpreted as having seen

NE: delusion, hallucination, fabrication.

5 the sudden rise of the Christian movement shortly after the death of Jesus

Was there a "sudden rise"? Numbers seemed to have stayed quite small for some time. Estimates put numbers at around 1000 in the first decade after Jesus' death, growing slowly by around 40,000 over the next 100 years. Hardly something requiring divine intervention.

 

[KWED]

If a miracle is atestesred in multiple independent documents where the authors have been proven to be reliable and honestly trying to testify what really happened.

Interesting.
Could you name a Christian miracle that fulfils these conditions, along with the sources?

 

[Trailblazer]

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

You said: And yet the Bahai's I converse with here have been some of the most dogmatically irrational apologists I have ever encountered.

I was asking who you are to judge the Baha'is you conversed with here.
That is only your opinion of those Baha'is, it is not a fact unless you can prove it.

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

That's right, it is only my belief, which is my opinion.

Probably.

Certainly.

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

What were those false claims and how do YOU KNOW that thew were false?

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 never said I did not have any evidence, I said I do not have any proof. Evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable. I have no verifiable evidence so I have no proof.

Wrong. You believe what you believe is true.

You cannot tell me what I know because you are not me.

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.

I never said that no amount of evidence or rational argument could ever change my mind but I have yet to see that evidence or rational argument presented by anyone, and I have been at this for over nine years now. If you could discredit Baha'u'llah and thereby prove was a false prophet with actual facts about Him, that would do the job. Good luck.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

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

Link.

That atheist is on another forum and I don't want to post it here.

I can speak for rational thought.

So can I.

So you admit that your 93% claim was misleading.

If 84% of people in the world have a faith and 7% of people in the world are atheists that means that 9% of people believe in God but have no religion.

Of course that is only according to those statistics so it could be misleading. I highly doubt that 93% of people in the world really believe in God because if that many people really believed in God the world would not be such a mess!

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

How does it contradict that study?

 

[Trailblazer]

Which "verifiable details" are you referring to?

 

[KWED]

You said: And yet the Bahai's I converse with here have been some of the most dogmatically irrational apologists I have ever encountered.

I was asking who you are to judge the Baha'is you conversed with here.

I'm me. Who else is going to arrive at judgements based on my personal experiences. You?

That is only your opinion of those Baha'is, it is not a fact unless you can prove it.

Did I claim it was a fact?
No.

That's right, it is only my belief, which is my opinion.

So you cannot claim it is "a fact" or that "you know" it.

Certainly.

Unless you were in the room with him the whole time, you are merely accepting a claim. So you cannot be certain.

What were those false claims and how do YOU KNOW that thew were false?

I have presented this many times now, and not a single Baha'i has ventured a reply.
He said that all humans used to speak the same language in the past, until god gave us different languages as a punishment (around 4-5000 years ago). This is demonstrably wrong. It never happened. Bahaullah was just repeating the false claims from earlier scriptures.

I never said I did not have any evidence, I said I do not have any proof. Evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable. I have no verifiable evidence so I have no proof.

Oh, come on. This is exactly what I predicted would happen.
"I have evidence, but all my evidence is belief".

You cannot tell me what I know because you are not me.

Yes I can.
If you claim to know something which is impossible to know, then I can tell you that you are wrong. And you have just admitted that your "knowledge" is just belief that you don have any verifiable evidence for.

I never said that no amount of evidence or rational argument could ever change my mind but I have yet to see that evidence or rational argument presented by anyone, and I have been at this for over nine years now. .

That is what you implied when you said "and there is nothing you can do about it".
As you cannot possibly know what evidence or argument I may present over the coming years, you are effectively dismissing all of it without even hearing it.

If you could discredit Baha'u'llah and thereby prove was a false prophet with actual facts about Him, that would do the job.

So you weren't being honest when you said "and there is nothing you can do about it".

Well, I have shown that Bahaullah repeated a false claim made in the Bible, so he was wrong, and he wasn't aware that he was wrong, and assumed the Bible was right.
This shows he was not a messenger of god, unless god is similarly ill-informed.
(We both know that you will come up with some lame excuse for why Bahaullah was wrong, because you faith overrides evidence and reason)

 

[KWED]

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

I agree.

That atheist is on another forum and I don't want to post it here.

Convenient.

So can I.

Perhaps you should start then?

If 84% of people in the world have a faith and 7% of people in the world are atheists that means that 9% of people believe in God but have no religion.

It could also mean that 16% are atheists and the two studies produced conflicting results.
Anyway, I do not subscribe to argument ad populum. What is rational and true is determined by evidence and argument, not by numbers. There will always be more religionists than atheists as long as there are large numbers of poorly educated people, and religion is taught as the truth to children. Ideological indoctrination tends to stick.

Of course that is only according to those statistics so it could be misleading. I highly doubt that 93% of people in the world really believe in God because if that many people really believed in God the world would not be such a mess!

Are you high? You think that a belief in god precludes a tendency to violence greed, corruption, etc?

How does it contradict that study?

Because they gave different figures for the same things.

 

[Trailblazer]

So you cannot claim it is "a fact" or that "you know" it.

I can claim anything I want to.

Unless you were in the room with him the whole time, you are merely accepting a claim. So you cannot be certain.

No, there is verifiable evidence that the Writings of Baha'u'llah are authentic. I did not need to be in the room with Him.

Yes I can.
If you claim to know something which is impossible to know, then I can tell you that you are wrong. And you have just admitted that your "knowledge" is just belief that you don have any verifiable evidence for.

You can say whatever you want to say because this is a public forum, but you cannot know what is in my mind.

I do not claim to know, I say I know. There is a difference between the two.
I do not need verifiable evidence in order to know what I know.

That is what you implied when you said "and there is nothing you can do about it".
As you cannot possibly know what evidence or argument I may present over the coming years, you are effectively dismissing all of it without even hearing it.

There is nothing you can do about what I know, that is what I meant.
I did not mean there is nothing you can do to change my mind but the way you are going about it is not going to work.
I will listen to it when it is presented. Until then I cannot dismiss it.

Well, I have shown that Bahaullah repeated a false claim made in the Bible, so he was wrong, and he wasn't aware that he was wrong, and assumed the Bible was right.
This shows he was not a messenger of god, unless god is similarly ill-informed.
(We both know that you will come up with some lame excuse for why Bahaullah was wrong, because you faith overrides evidence and reason)

I will not address this unless I know what Baha'u'llah wrote and what you have to prove it is false.