Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[leroy]

Evidence
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Only you ignored this question twice already, so you have made this claim 3 times now, and ignored my question each time.

You also ignored this question: (the link will provide the context)


You also ignored this question: (see above)


You also ignored this question: (again the link provides the context)

So was Sir Isaac Newton, are you saying that you thus believe his claims that alchemy and astrology are credible?

........
Assuming for the sake of argument that Newton ever asserted that alchemy is possible (wich he didn't)........

Yes Newton would deserve the benefit of the doubt (so your question was answered)

Luke was well informed on the stuff happening in the place and time where jesus lived. We know this because the verifiable events that he reports are usually true.

So with events that we can't verify he deserves the benefit of the doubt / this means that unless proven otherwise or onless good reasons to doubt are given we should assume that his claims are true.


Imagine that archeologists from the future find a list of 100 claims made by Newton, (100 claims that he asserts as facts)

Imagine that 50 of thise claims can be verified and happen to be true .

To give Newton the benefit of the doubt simply means that we most assume that the other 50 claims are likely to be true (unless proven otherwise) or onless a good reason to doubt is given.

...

Or to put it this way

If an event from Ancient history was reported by a well informed author, this event is more likely to be true than if the event is reported by a non informed author. Agree?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.



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.



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.

You left out the one where he looked dead and since he was in a nice room instead of under 6 feet of dirt, he woke up and skipped town.

 

[Sheldon]

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

Your claim:

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

Sheldon ↑
Second hand hearsay after the fact then. If you provide it of course, which seems dubious.

You still didn't address this, at all?

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.

No you don't, not according to mainstream biblical scholars. We have material that claims a wizard went to Hogwarts, I'm dubious.

 

[Sheldon]

Assuming for the sake of argument that Newton ever asserted that alchemy is possible (wich he didn't)........

"Newton’s dabblings in alchemy are well known, but his belief that he had found the closely guarded blueprint for the Philosophers’ Stone was astonishing indeed.
Newton was not the only intellectual heavyweight from his era trying to make gold."

<LINK>

You really ought to learn to fact check things before making up BS.

Yes Newton would deserve the benefit of the doubt (so your question was answered)

Hilarious, so based on appeal to authority fallacy you know believe in alchemy, I shan't even feign surprise anymore.

Luke was well informed on the stuff happening in the place and time where jesus lived. We know this because the verifiable events that he reports are usually true.

I see two claims, and no evidence? Not very compelling. You do know the name was arbitrarily assigned over a century after the fact right?

"The gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles make up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke–Acts. The author is not named in either volume. According to a Church tradition, first attested by Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD), he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the Pauline letters, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters." The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward. Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110, and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century."

So third hand hearsay from an unknown author, with evidence the text was being revised over a century after the fact.

So with events that we can't verify he deserves the benefit of the doubt / this means that unless proven otherwise or onless good reasons to doubt are given we should assume that his claims are true.

Benefit of the doubt is pure bias, the more extraordinary the claim the higher the burden of proof, you seem to be risibly suggesting the opposite, where we abandon the need for any evidence and you get to arbitrarily make unevidenced claims.

Imagine that archeologists from the future find a list of 100 claims made by Newton, (100 claims that he asserts as facts)

Imagine that 50 of thise claims can be verified and happen to be true .

To give Newton the benefit of the doubt simply means that we most assume that the other 50 claims are likely to be true (unless proven otherwise) or onless a good reason to doubt is given.

Well done, you have managed to combine an appeal to authority fallacy with an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and in a single claim, hilarious.

 

[lukethethird]

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

Yes, we should, if all we have is unverifiable religious texts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Before you dismiss what @KWED is saying, consider the fact that the census story fabrication is evidence that Jesus actually existed.

It's trivial to make a fictional character's story not contradict itself. The fact that the Bible authors had to go to absurd lengths so that Jesus could somehow be from Galilee and Bethlehem at the same time suggests they had to reconcile real facts about the man with what the prophecy said he would be like.

 

[KWED]

Unlike yourself I can support my assertions. We have material that afirms the resurrection

And I have material that affirms cyclops, dragons and ice giants.
Are you going somewhere different with this, or is it just the same blind alley?

that dates within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion.

No it doesn't. The earliest material that mentions the resurrection is hearsay written about 20 years after the event. This has been explained in detail. Why do you keep repeating the same refined assertions? It really isn't a good look.

 

[KWED]

........
Assuming for the sake of argument that Newton ever asserted that alchemy is possible (wich he didn't)........

Of course he believed it possible! Why else would he spend his life trying to do it?

Yes Newton would deserve the benefit of the doubt (so your question was answered)

What?! So you actually think that alchemy is actually possible, simply because Newton believed it was, and he was right about other stuff?
With all due respect, you have just set fire to the coffin after driving the last nail in.
You can no longer expect to be taken seriously here (not that you were anyway).

 

[Sheldon]

Of course he believed it possible! Why else would he spend his life trying to do it?

What?! So you actually think that alchemy is actually possible, simply because Newton believed it was, and he was right about other stuff?
With all due respect, you have just set fire to the coffin after driving the last nail in.
You can no longer expect to be taken seriously here (not that you were anyway).

Did you notice the dishonesty of him evading the question about Newton's belief in astrology, but answering about alchemy, now it wouldn't have anything to do with astrology has been characterised as a heresy by many Christian thinkers, would it? @leroy, would you care to tell us, since Newton fulfils your earlier criteria and believed in astrology, do you believe astrology is credible, and should be given the benefit of the doubt? Newton was also a Unitarian Christian, should that be given the benefit of the doubt?

Oh what a tangles web we weave etc...

 

[leroy]

You still didn't address this, at all?



No you don't, not according to mainstream biblical scholars. We have material that claims a wizard went to Hogwarts, I'm dubious.

I supported my claim "that corintians 1 15 has matarial that can be dated within 2 or 3 years after the resurrection "


What else do you whant ?

 

[leroy]

"



Hilarious, so based on appeal to authority fallacy you know believe in alchemy, I shan't even feign surprise anymore.

No, reed what I said , stop misrepresenting me.


What i said / implied is that assuming that we don't know if alchemy is true or not, a text written by Newton asserting as fact that alchemy is possible we should give him the benefit of the doubt (until proven otherwise)........ if you font like it then its your problem, this is how history works ..... usualy what well informed historians like josephus tacitus plutarch is taken as granted unless proven otherwise why making an arbitrary exception with Luke?

I see two claims, and no evidence? Not very compelling. You do know the name was arbitrarily assigned over a century after the fact right?

Ok so maybe his name was not luke, maybe he had an other name like Joe, or Simon, or bob .....so what ?

So third hand hearsay from an unknown author, with evidence the text was being revised over a century after the fact.

How do you know it was hearsay?

The concensus amoung scholars is within the years 70 and 80 but so what ? The relevant thing is that Luke was well informed, he knew the stuff happening during the time where jesus lived

His actual name and the date are not relevant

Benefit of the doubt is pure bias, the more extraordinary the claim the higher the burden of proof,

Granted, so where do you put the bar for a resuand why?

Well done, you have managed to combine an appeal to authority fallacy

You did the same thing with the stegosaurus, you are appealing to authority, you are assuming thatvthe authorities are being honest and reliable when claiming that the fosdil is authentic.

 

[KWED]

I supported my claim "that corintians 1 15 has matarial that can be dated within 2 or 3 years after the resurrection "

You keep making this claim but I have yet to see any evidence to support it.

 

[KWED]

you are assuming that the authorities are being honest and reliable when claiming that the fosdil is authentic.

Presumably you apply this principle to the claims in the Bible?
What's that?
You don't?
Why the inconsistency?

 

[leroy]

You keep making this claim but I have yet to see any evidence to support it.

I provided a quote from an atheist scholar + a source that concludes that most other scholars agree + a source explaining how they arrived at that conclusion.

What else do you whant ?

 

[leroy]

Did you notice the dishonesty of him evading the question about Newton's belief in astrology, but answering about alchemy, now it wouldn't have anything to do with astrology has been characterised as a heresy by many Christian thinkers, would it? @leroy, would you care to tell us, since Newton fulfils your earlier criteria and believed in astrology, do you believe astrology is credible, and should be given the benefit of the doubt? Newton was also a Unitarian Christian, should that be given the benefit of the doubt?

Oh what a tangles web we weave etc...

Just change alchemy for astrology, my answer would be the same.

 

[leroy]

Of course he believed it possible! Why else would he spend his life trying to do it?

What?! So you actually think that alchemy is actually possible, simply because Newton believed it was, and he was right about other stuff?
With all due respect, you have just set fire to the coffin after driving the last nail in.
You can no longer expect to be taken seriously here (not that you were anyway).

You are si simply misrepresenting what I said.

What I said is that (hypotheticalaly) if Newton would have asserted as fact that alchemy can be done and if we where in a possition where we cant test/know if alchemy can be done or not (say we are 50% 50%) then this text by Newton should move the possibilities above 50% (in favor of alchemy)

 

[leroy]

No it doesn't. The earliest material that mentions the resurrection is hearsay written about 20 years after the event. This has been explained in detail. Why do you keep repeating the same refined assertions? It really isn't a good look.

This is becoming long tedious and boring,

As I showed some material dates back to within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion. This is what scholars concluded and i even provided a source that explains why scholars belive that .

What else do you whant. ?

 

[leroy]

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

Yes, we should, if all we have is unverifiable religious texts.

Note how you didn't answer my question

 

[leroy]

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.

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

You are now just playing skeptic.

Some of the people who knew jesus where still alive 30-60 years after the crucifixion, we know this because some people live more than 100 years. So statically speacking we are certain that some witnesses where still alive when the gospels where written. ...This is a trivial and uncontroversial truth.

Whant a specific name? Well john the apostole died in the year 100 or so, so he was still alive when the gospels where written.


The only point that I am making is that given that witnesses where still alive, lies and legends are less likely to flurish. This is trivially and uncontroversially true. And you know it

 

[leroy]

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

Why dont you stop the hypocrisy and admit that your only problem is that the some events in the NT contradic the laws of nature . ?