Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Trailblazer]

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

That is not what I said.I said that if that many people really believed in God the world would not be such a mess!!

 

[KWED]

I can claim anything I want to.

Yes, and I can show you why you are wrong.

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.

What is the "verifiable evidence" that Bahaullah himself wrote every word of all his books and pamphlets?

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

Huh? We are talking about claims you make.
If you say "I know that 2+2=5", I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that you are wrong. What you are thinking is irrelevant.

I do not claim to know, I say I know. There is a difference between the two.

Oh, dear god, not this again!
They have the same meaning!
Claim: State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
State: Express something definitely or clearly in speech or writing.

I do not need verifiable evidence in order to know what I know.

What? You can't be serious!?
Without verifiable evidence, how do you know that you know it? Without verifiable evidence it is just an idea or opinion.

There is nothing you can do about what I know, that is what I meant.

Well, you are wrong again. I can impart some knowledge you did not already have.
In fact I have just done that. You didn't know that "claim" and "say" are synonymous. Now you do. I have changed what you know.
You used to think that Bahaullah didn't make any errors in his writings. I showed you that he did. I changed what you know.

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.

Same problem. You are dismissing evidence and argument before it is presented. Stop being so close-minded.

I will listen to it when it is presented. Until then I cannot dismiss it.

So when you just said "There is nothing you can do about what I know" and "it is not going to work", were you mistaken or dishonest?

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

I have previously provided the quote.

"The divers and widely-known languages now spoken by the peoples of the earth were originally unknown, as were the varied rules and customs now prevailing amongst them. The people of those times spoke a language different from those now known. Diversities of language arose in a later age, in a land known as Babel. It was given the name Babel, because the term signifieth “the place where the confusion of tongues arose.”

There is no evidence that everyone on the planet ever spoke the same language, or had the same customs and rules. Bahullah was wrong because he was repeating a Bible myth that was wrong.

 

[leroy]

leroy said: ↑
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.

I will ignore the fact that you cant show that point 1 and 2 are true (atleast not with the high stadards for evidence that you seem to have)

I you read my comments carefully you will note that I used the word "most" precisely because I am not claiming that the gospels are perfect with zero mistakes......all I am saying is that they are good enough ti deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

[leroy]

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

No, you still have to show

1 that homer intended to narrate real historical events

2 that most of the verifiable historical facts are true.

 

[leroy]

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".

What is the point of asking for sources, if you will nor reed them ?

Corintians 1 15 is quoting an early creed that is dated by scholars within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion

 

[ppp]

1 that homer intended to narrate real historical events

No more than you have to show that the author of Matthew intended to narrate real historical events.

2 that most of the verifiable historical facts are true.

Verifiable historical facts are true that is what verifiable means. While the Bible has many verifiable historical claims, it has many more that are unverifiable and many more that are just plain false.

 

[leroy]

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?

No no no I didn't say that (Red letters above)

have, as that is the methodology, science would not accept them as fossils without at least satisfying those requirements

Care to cite one requirement that was meat with the stegosaurus and thst is not dependent on testimonials?

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, and I can show you why you are wrong.

Go ahead and try if it is important to you.

What is the "verifiable evidence" that Bahaullah himself wrote every word of all his books and pamphlets?

Baha'u'llah stamped all His Tablets with His official seal and later His Writings were verified by modern methods of handwriting analysis.

Huh? We are talking about claims you make.
If you say "I know that 2+2=5", I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that you are wrong. What you are thinking is irrelevant.

That's right, because it is a known fact that 2+2 does not equal 5, but it is not a known fact that Baha'u'llah was not a Messenger of God, so you cannot tell me with absolute certainty that He wasn't.

I do not know that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God as a fact, I know it as a belief, but a person can have absolute certainty of their belief. Why would someone hold a belief they were not certain of? I am a Gnostic Theist, not an Agnostic Theist.

Oh, dear god, not this again!
They have the same meaning!
Claim: State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
State: Express something definitely or clearly in speech or writing.

I did state it, I said it. I do not claim it because I cannot prove it, nor am I trying to prove it.

Say: utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=say+means

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=claim+means

What? You can't be serious!?
Without verifiable evidence, how do you know that you know it? Without verifiable evidence it is just an idea or opinion.

I am dead serious. God cannot be verified by anyone so how could anyone ever verify that Baha'u'llah got messages from God. This is logic 101.

It is not an idea or an opinion, it is a belief.

Well, you are wrong again. I can impart some knowledge you did not already have.
In fact I have just done that. You didn't know that "claim" and "say" are synonymous. Now you do. I have changed what you know.
You used to think that Bahaullah didn't make any errors in his writings. I showed you that he did. I changed what you know.

No, you did not change anything that I know.
Clearly, claim and say are not synonymous, they mean different things.

No, you did not show me that Baha'u'llah made errors in His Writings. What you offered below is not proof of any mistake.

Same problem. You are dismissing evidence and argument before it is presented. Stop being so close-minded.

I cannot dismiss something that has not been presented yet.

So when you just said "There is nothing you can do about what I know" and "it is not going to work", were you mistaken or dishonest?

I do not think that I was either mistaken or dishonest. I don't think you are going to change my mind. You'd have to dig up some dirt on Baha'u'llah and prove it is accurate to change my mind. Trust me, other atheists have tried and failed. This is not my first rodeo.

I have previously provided the quote.

"The divers and widely-known languages now spoken by the peoples of the earth were originally unknown, as were the varied rules and customs now prevailing amongst them. The people of those times spoke a language different from those now known. Diversities of language arose in a later age, in a land known as Babel. It was given the name Babel, because the term signifieth “the place where the confusion of tongues arose.”

There is no evidence that everyone on the planet ever spoke the same language, or had the same customs and rules. Bahullah was wrong because he was repeating a Bible myth that was wrong.

The people of those times spoke a language different from those now known does not say they all spoke the same language.
Is there any evidence that everyone on the planet originally spoke different languages?

 

[KWED]

I will ignore the fact that you cant show that point 1 and 2 are true

There are enough Roman records on the subject of censuses to show that the particular census in the Bible is a fabrication.

(atleast not with the high stadards for evidence that you seem to have)

But it certainly meets your standards of "if it's written in a book, it must be true".

I you read my comments carefully you will note that I used the word "most" precisely because I am not claiming that the gospels are perfect with zero mistakes......all I am saying is that they are good enough ti deserve the benefit of the doubt.

And I have already explained why your argument is incoherent.
Just because an old book dealing with past events contains some accurate information does not mean that everything in it is therefore accurate, especially if some of its claims require a suspension of the laws of nature. It is such an obvious non sequitur that I am surprised even you attempted to employ it.

And I am still utterly baffled by your position on the Bible. You have admitted that there is stuff in there about people rising from the dead that you consider too far-fetched to believe, yet you simultaneously claim that we must accept another passage about people rising from the dead as entirely reasonable. It's the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

 

[KWED]

No, you still have to show
1 that homer intended to narrate real historical events

1. You haven't shown that about the Bible, you have merely claimed it.. The originators of the narrative could have been deliberately mythologising the Jesus character to promote their new group.
2. It is entirely likely that Homer considered his work to be an accurate record of Odysseus' adventures. He would certainly have believed in the gods he wrote about.

2 that most of the verifiable historical facts are true.

1. Again, you haven't shown that most accounts of events in the Bible are true, you have merely claimed it.
2. There are historical and geographical facts in those books. They include actual events, places and people. Maybe you should read them? They are certainly more exciting than the Bible.

 

[KWED]

What is the point of asking for sources, if you will nor reed them ?
Corintians 1 15 is quoting an early creed that is dated by scholars within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion

Would you like a hand with those goalposts? They look heavy.
You said "1 Corinthians 15:3 has been dated by scholars within 3 years after the crucifixion". Corinthians is dated some 2 decades after. You were wrong.

So now that your initial argument has been refuted, you are now claiming that something mentioned in Corinthians comes from another source that has been dated 2-3 years after the crucifixion.
Fair enough. Present your evidence for that.

 

[KWED]

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.

Ok. Now we are getting somewhere. So given that
1. you accept that there are possible, natural explanations for all the magical claims in the Bible
2. that you accept that the Bible contains accounts of extraordinary events that you believe are not true
3. the Bible contains only hearsay accounts, removed from the actual events sometimes by decades
4. the Bible was compiled by people with a vested interest in promoting the narrative of a Jesus with supernatural powers
5. there are no corroborative accounts of the resurrection in any near-contemporary, independent references to Jesus
6. that every issue that has a known explanation has a natural cause (many of which people used to be convinced were supernatural)
7. you reject the claims of other religions who are equally as certain about their claims as you are about yours...

Why do you insist that the account of the resurrection in the Bible is true rather than myth?

 

[KWED]

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

Unfortunately, this does not describe the Bible. Not even by a long stretch of a fevered imagination.
You have admitted yourself that the authors of the Bible deliberately included descriptions of things that didn't happen - so how can you make the above claim with a straight face. Either you are being deliberately dishonest or you are hopelessly deluded. Can't think of a third possibility.

 

[KWED]

That is not what I said.I said that if that many people really believed in God the world would not be such a mess!!

No True Scotsman fallacy. Most religionists really do believe in god.
What you meant was "if people believed in my version of god," which is a claim made bay all religionists.
I'm sure most religionists would question whether you really believe in god, in the same way that you question their belief.
It's the classic case of a religious apologist not realising that their arguments work just as well against their own position.

 

[Sheldon]

KWED said: ↑
So you cannot claim it is "a fact" or that "you know" it.

I can claim anything I want to.

Again I believe he meant rationally and epistemologically, not literally.

No, there is verifiable evidence that the Writings of Baha'u'llah are authentic.

I am extremely dubious, since every time theists claim this, it always comes down to their subjective belief.

KWED said: ↑
If you claim to know something which is impossible to know, then I can tell you that you are wrong.

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

He doesn't need to, you made a claim to knowledge, and have failed to produce it. In a debate that's salient observation.

I do not claim to know, I say I know. There is a difference between the two.

Don't be absurd.

I do not need verifiable evidence in order to know what I know.

You just claimed you had verifiable evidence???

No, there is verifiable evidence that the Writings of Baha'u'llah are authentic.

So which is it?

There is nothing you can do about what I know, that is what I meant.

He can demand you demonstrate the knowledge inherent in the claim. That's how debate works. If you won't don't or can't do so, or if you try to hide betide a logical fallacy or ludicrous semantics, then the inference is clear.

 

[Sheldon]

I will ignore the fact that you cant show that point 1 and 2 are true

I am not claiming that the gospels are perfect with zero mistakes......all I am saying is that they are good enough ti deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Oh dear.

 

[Sheldon]

No, you still have to show

1 that homer intended to narrate real historical events

2 that most of the verifiable historical facts are true.

all I am saying is that they are good enough ti deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

[KWED]

Go ahead and try if it is important to you.

I have done so on multiple occasions. You simply don't have the capacity to understand it. I really must try and remember what I shouldn't encourage you.

Baha'u'llah stamped all His Tablets with His official seal

Many people sign things they didn't write themselves.

and later His Writings were verified by modern methods of handwriting analysis.

Really? Every page?
Evidence please.

That's right, because it is a known fact that 2+2 does not equal 5, but it is not a known fact that Baha'u'llah was not a Messenger of God, so you cannot tell me with absolute certainty that He wasn't.

We weren't taking about that. You claimed that I couldn't know whether you are right or wrong about something.

I do not know that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God as a fact, I know it as a belief,

Aaand, here we go round again. You are about to claim that you know your belief is true...

but a person can have absolute certainty of their belief. Why would someone hold a belief they were not certain of? I am a Gnostic Theist, not an Agnostic Theist.

Ok. On what do you base your certainty that your belief is true, given that you have admitted that you do not know it is true?

I did state it, I said it. I do not claim it because I cannot prove it, nor am I trying to prove it.
Say: utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=say+means
Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=claim+means

I give up.

I am dead serious. God cannot be verified by anyone so how could anyone ever verify that Baha'u'llah got messages from God. This is logic 101.

You said... "I do not need verifiable evidence in order to know what I know."
Now you are admitting that you don't "know", you merely "believe".
Also, glad you have finally admitted that you do not know Bahaullah was a messenger from god, you merely believe it, but you have no way of verifying it - despite claiming many times that it was an evidence-based fact.

It is not an idea or an opinion, it is a belief.

I guess English isn't your first language so you are struggling with some of the basics, but those three words are essentially synonymous.

Clearly, claim and say are not synonymous, they mean different things.

No, you did not show me that Baha'u'llah made errors in His Writings. What you offered below is not proof of any mistake.
The people of those times spoke a language different from those now known does not say they all spoke the same language.
Is there any evidence that everyone on the planet originally spoke different languages?

"The people of those times spoke a language different from those now known."
He says "a different language", not "different languages"

"Diversities of language arose in a later age,"
This means that before that age, there was no diversity in language.
Diversity in language has always existed. Wherever there is evidence of language around the world it is always different.

"in a land known as Babel."
"Babel" is the Hebrew name for Babylon. There are several known languages older than the historical settlement at Babylon.

I appreciate that as English isn't your first language you might struggle with the implications of some statements, but what Bahaullah wrote has meaning, and that meaning is wrong.

 

[Sheldon]

Corintians 1 15 is quoting an early creed that is dated by scholars within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion

Which scholars are these? You must done some pretty creative Googling to get those dates, but I am very dubious.

<CITATION>

"Although there is near consensus among historians and theologians that Paul is the author of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (c. AD 53–54), the letter have many interpolations and teachings contrary to Pauline theology, which increases the doubt on it's authenticity."

"By comparing Acts of the Apostles 18:1-17 and mentions of Ephesus in the Corinthian correspondence, scholars suggest that the letter was written during Paul's stay in Ephesus, which is usually dated as being in the range of AD 53–57."

 

[Sheldon]

Verifiable historical facts are true that is what verifiable means. While the Bible has many verifiable historical claims, it has many more that are unverifiable and many more that are just plain false.

More importantly is that verifiable historical facts don't remotely evidence any of the supernatural claims. There are verifiable facts in the Superman movies, this doesn't make Superman real, obviously. Again the intent of the author adds context maybe, but it does not lend credence to the claims. An objective reader would also have to take into account the extraordinary nature of the claims, and the context of the epoch, and how ignorant and superstitious most people were.

It's hardly a coincidence that the amount of miracles claimed, have diminished in direct proportion to our ability to reliably record such events, and scientifically explain them.

2000 years ago, superstitious and ignorant people would have had a failed day with the tsunamis in Japan and Asia, but we know they are caused by tectonic plate shift at fault lines in the earth's crust deep under the sea shifting the column of water in the ocean.

The awe of an empty tomb might be manifest to illiterate goat herders, or highly superstitious and scientifically illiterate historians of that period, but leaving aside it is naught but unverifiable hearsay, it would get a shrug of the shoulders today.