Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[KWED]

Again what would change if i presesuch evidence? Would you change your view on the resurrection?

If it was conclusive and allowed no other possible explanation, yes. That's how evidence and rational thought works.

I find it amusing how apologists are often reluctant to present their bombshell "evidence". Presumably they suspect, despite their apparent conviction, that it isn't actually what they hope it is.

 

[KWED]

He just presented you with some reasonable evidence. But having appointed yourself the determiner of what is and isn't evidence, you have determined that only proof will be accepted as evidence. And of course proof is a completely subjective benchmark. YOUR subjective benchmark. So nothing being offered is ever going to reach that benchmark.

It might be considered a clever tactic if you were smart enough to have thought it up, but you didn't. It's just the standard intellectual dishonesty that seems to accompany atheism these days.

lol! No they didn't.
They presented a series of unsupported assertions and then asked "If these were all true, then..." which is an utterly meaningless argument.
I can respond with
1. There is a skeleton of an 80 year old man in a tomb in Jerusalem confirmed to be Jesus.
2. There is a document where Paul admits he made it all up
If these two points are shown to be true, then you must admit the resurrection never happened.

I have never demanded "proof", I have only asked for some evidence to support the original claim. I have merely pointed out that there is nothing to support the resurrection claim outside of the Bible, and given the possible natural explanations, it is therefore unreasonable to insist that the resurrection happened.
Really don't know why you are getting your panties in a bunch over it - but that seems to be your MO, to just bleat meaninglessly about "standards of evidence" and the suchlike, but fail to actually contribute anything worthwhile.

 

[Sheldon]

If it was conclusive and allowed no other possible explanation, yes. That's how evidence and rational thought works.

I find it amusing how apologists are often reluctant to present their bombshell "evidence". Presumably they suspect, despite their apparent conviction, that it isn't actually what they hope it is.

I don't believe in absolute certainty of course, but over many decades I have found something to be invariably true. When they do present it, and it turns out to be naught but subjective conclusion based on hearsay, it's always my fault I don't believe it.

Often before they gleefully contemplate what their deity will do to me when I die for my lack of faith. In fact on many occasions, I got the distinct impression one or two of them didn't want to wait for my posthumous reward, or their deity, and were gleefully contemplating the pleasure they'd get from jumping the gun.

I fear the Japanese giant hornet, but I don't fear Hell, anymore than I fear being gored by an angry unicorn, or being dragged to a watery grave by a nefarious mermaid.

 

[KWED]

Math ....

If some people live 100+years then any document that was written 100years after the event would have been written during a time where wittneses where still alive.

The gospels where written 30-80 years after the event , so witnesses where still alive. (Which means that lies and legends are unlikely to flurish)

If I go to New York and tell people that Hitler invaded New York during World War II people are unlikely to be fooled because some witnesses of WW2 are still alive and they would have noticed the NAZI invation. My lies can easily be exposed by simply asking the elders if such an event happened.

Question begging.
If the event did not happen, there were no witnesses.

The same is true with the gospels, any lies could have easily been exposed by the witnesses.... for example if the tomb was not empty , people would have known that and could have exposed the body....... (which means that a rumor or lie on the empty tomb would have been unlikely to flurish)

How do you propose that a (possibly illiterate) witness to an event in Jerusalem in 33AD is going to challenge an account written in Koine Greek, in a different region, 30 years later? How would they even know the account existed?
****, I've been told a story about an event I was involved in, years after the event, by people who weren't there, that was not accurate and I didn't know the altered story was doing the rounds. And that's a shorter time span and with far better communication and likelihood of encountering it. It is bonkers to claim that someone present at the crucifixion would necessarily be aware of what the gospel writers were doing decades later.

 

[Trailblazer]

Question begging.
If the event did not happen, there were no witnesses.

How do you propose that a (possibly illiterate) witness to an event in Jerusalem in 33AD is going to challenge an account written in Koine Greek, in a different region, 30 years later? How would they even know the account existed?
****, I've been told a story about an event I was involved in, years after the event, by people who weren't there, that was not accurate and I didn't know the altered story was doing the rounds. And that's a shorter time span and with far better communication and likelihood of encountering it. It is bonkers to claim that someone present at the crucifixion would necessarily be aware of what the gospel writers were doing decades later.

As an atheist on another forum with whom I have been sparring for about eight years once said about the resurrection, a story is not proof that anything in that story ever happened. He said a lot more than that, his post was very eloquent, and I only wish I have saved what was in that post so I could share it.

 

[KWED]

I am simply asking if the truth of those points would count as evidence ...... why can you simply simply answer?

They aren't true, so the question is meaningless.
However, I won't have you accusing me of dodging questions, so...

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

1. You can't.
2. Even if you could, it would not be evidence as it is still just unsupported anecdote.

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

1. You can't.
2. Even if you could, we know the human mind can play tricks on the subject. We know people see things that aren't there and misinterpret things that are. So it still wouldn't be evidence of the resurrection.

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

As I do not know which source you are referring to, present it and we can examine it.

 

[KWED]

So what ? The point that I made is that the authors of Greco-Roman biographies typically (and in general terms) have the intend to narrate what really happened. (Not that the autjors are perfect and dont make mistakes)

So do you agree with tbis specific point

Yes, I agree that in ancient times, even when an author genuinely thought they were recounting actual events, those events may not have happened.

Yes

My question was... "So if a document promotes an idealised portrayal of a desired agenda the author likely intended to narrate fiction or myth?"
The gospels are "an idealised portrayal of a desired agenda".
So you just agreed that the authors of the gospels likely intended to narrate fiction or myth.
Well, it took a while, but my work here is dome.
I bid you adieu.

 

[KWED]

Prove that the NT is based on hearsay when it comes to the resurrection.

So you are claiming that the people who wrote the gospels witnessed the resurrection themselves? Really?
Do you know how crazy that sounds? Not even hardline Biblical scholars believe that!

 

[KWED]

We don't have a single contemporary source for most of the events in ancient history. .... should we reject all ancient history?

If it only has non-contemporary, uncorroborated accounts that require the laws of nature to be suspended, then yes. Absolutely. Any historian would agree.

 

[KWED]

Jajjajaa so not even mathematical certainty is good enough for you, ....... is this how an unbiased open minded man suppose to look like ?

You seem confused.
Just because it is possible that people who were alive in AD33 were still alive in AD55, that doesn't mean it is a "mathematical certainty" that they were still alive.

When the gospels where written, some witnesses were still alive.

Ok. You have made a claim of fact, so support it.
Who were these "witnesses", and what were their accounts?

 

[KWED]

My father was a college English professor and I helped him grade his papers when I was 10 years old.

Of course you did.
I remember why I thought it better to not engage with you. I hope everything works out ok for you.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course you did.
I remember why I thought it better to not engage with you. I hope everything works out ok for you.

Are you calling me a liar? I am fine with you not engaging with me but I am not a liar or anything else you imagine I am. You don't know me. You just think you do.

 

[Sheldon]

Why do you feel a need to convince me that my religion is not true unless you are worried it might be true or unless you just need to be right, which is arrogance?

You know you said that in a public debate forum right? Why do you feel anyone shouldn't voice doubts or criticisms to any publicly expressed claim, idea, and belief? Surely beliefs that are ringfenced from criticism are the weakest kind.

That also applies for your need to convince Christians they are wrong and you are right.

I know, the very nerve, before you know it he'll have a huge building, and be ringing a bell for the whole town to come listen, and then aggressively and even violently spread his doctrine globally....oh wait?

You can call it a debate but the need to be right is arrogance.

She said arrogantly.
Debate
verb

1. argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.

Now is it possible to argue when you think you're wrong?

There are only certain atheists on this forum who do this, not all atheists have a need to disprove theists.

Well look here, what we have is yet another no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The Christian God is not a magician. He makes wonders, not damn magic.

Is that like saying it is not milk, it’s liquid lactose?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I know better God, than an atheist does.
Atheists or sinners have written dictionaries.

Do not insult the God, do not accuse Him of sin. He is not magician, He is not a witch.

Look the correct use of words:

Police executes criminals, but criminals murder people.

Army executes enemies, but enemies murder people.

God makes wonders, but satan makes magic.

This reminds me of this:

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Assigning omnipotence to a deity is just an assumption, not an explanation, it's also a begging the question fallacy.

And historically inaccurate, since omnimax gods are later inventions.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It is unscientific to find flaws in my religion. Because Science does not study religions.

What do you think theology means?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

NO. I know better my God than any disbeliever on Earth. Look, who knows better of driving: driver, or non-driver?
Better of fighting: fighter, or non-fighter? Believer knows more of belief, than non-believer.

If they wreck all the time, probably the non-driver.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

My brother-in-law will lie some more, continue lying and stand behind all the lies, just to cover up his initial lie.
I think he actually believes his lies are true. I'm sure there is a lot of saving face involved.

My mom can’t keep track of the fantasies in her head.

 

[leroy]

Please for once honestly address what I actually posted, and not another of your tediously dishonest straw men.

Your claim:



My response:



So we can note that:

1. You responded with a dishonest straw man.
2. You did not provide the evidence for your claim.

Quod erat demonstrandum

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

Unlike yourself I can support my assertions. We have material that afirms the resurrection (amoung other stuff) that dates within 2 or 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.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]

So now its your turn support your assertions on that the resurrection is bases on rumors.

Or is it an other case where you dont have to support your assertions.