Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[KWED]

Will you ever prove that the resurection is basedon hearsay?

You keep making that assertion over and over again, without any supporting evidence.

I have explained to you exactly how we know it is only based on heresy. I think others have as well. I'll try again, but I'll type really slow this time...
Hearsay: Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated
The earliest record we have of the resurrection is from 20 years after the event. The author of that record was not a witness to the event. Therefore someone must have told him about it. Therefore it is hearsay.
QED.

 

[KWED]

All I am saying that some of the witnesses of the crucifixion where alive 40-50 years after , for example a 20yo witness would have been 60 or 70 years old.

You don't know that. It is merely an assumption based on possibility.

Also, that is not what you are actually claiming here. You are claiming that the resurrection actually happened. And that is something you simply cannot substantiate.

 

[lukethethird]

Note how you didn't answer my question

Your question is misleading. History relies on corroborated events and actual artifacts which is why nothing in the Bible is considered history.

 

[leroy]

So your actual claim is not that "we have sources from 2-3 years after the crucifixion", but "the earliest sources probably drew on earlier, unknown and unrecorded sources".
Very possibly. It is entirely reasonable to claim that Paul heard the Jesus myth from someone else.

But we have finally established that you do not have any sources earlier than Corinthians, which was hearsay, written 20 years after the event.
Phew! It's like pulling teeth.

Stop claiming without evidence that Corinthians is based on hearsay, / I provided the source for the claim that I made, / that we have material that affirms the resurrection that can be dated within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion.

I made the claim, you asked for support I provided a source, but exactly as I predicted that doesn’t change anything in your view…. (so why did you asked for the source in the first place?)

 

[leroy]

T
However, you still wouldn't know if they ever met the people who wrote the gospels. Claiming "they must have" is not a reasonable argument.

So what my argument is not based on the claim that the authors of the gospels meat the witnesses , my argument is simply that legends, gossip, lies ,myths etc are less likely to flourish given that there where witnesses where the gospels where written.

As I said before, if you go to new York and claim that Spain invaded New York 50 years ago, it´s unlikely that people would believe you, because witnesses are still alive, people that are 70yo would have noticed (and remember) the Spanish army entering to New York

If you tell them that Spain invaded New York 300 years ago, (and assuming that you are good at convincing people) you might succeed and people might believe you

So what? Unless you can show that Paul met the authors of the gospels, that information is meaningless.

Why is that relevant?

We know with high degree of certainty that both Paul and the authors of the Gospels where well informed / and that they were not lying. ……………..what else do you whant?

 

[leroy]

What "sources"? He was merely voicing an opinion.

Well then go and check the original source where he explains how he arrives at that conclusion. If you think he is wrong, then point the flaws in his work

 

[leroy]

KWED said: ↑
No. I am a sceptic. I do not accept extraordinary claims without supporting evidence.[/QUOTE]

↑leroy
All I am saying that some of the witnesses of the crucifixion where alive 40-50 years after , for example a 20yo witness would have been 60 or 70 years old.

You don't know that. It is merely an assumption based on possibility.
.

Irrelevant, you said (or implied) that I made an extraordinary claim. So why is claiming that witnesses where alive 50 years after an “extraordinary claim”?

 

[Sheldon]

Stop claiming without evidence that Corinthians is based on hearsay,

Hearsay
noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

 

[leroy]

Your question is misleading. History relies on corroborated events and actual artifacts which is why nothing in the Bible is considered history.

Who told you that?

 

[leroy]

Hearsay
noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

Will you ever show that the stuff related to the resurrection is hearasy ?

 

[Sheldon]

Well then go and check the original source where he explains how he arrives at that conclusion. If you think he is wrong, then point the flaws in his work

You used him as a source, and his opinion is not shared by mainstream biblical scholars, as was pointed out to you front he start. So given you clearly just Googled what you wanted, and have not researched the authors opinion, or read his book, no one else is obliged to disprove your claim.

 

[Sheldon]

Hearsay
noun

1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

Will you ever show that the stuff related to the resurrection is hearasy ?

It's right there in my post you quoted, for anyone who can read.

 

[Sheldon]

KWED said: ↑
No. I am a sceptic. I do not accept extraordinary claims without supporting evidence.

You claimed it was a mathematically certainty that the gospels contained eyewitness accounts, you have since made an unabashed revision that, it is statistically probable, but even that ludicrous assumption is rank dishonesty, as it is based on the lie that life expectancy at that time was 100 years. care to evidence that, without offering the circular reasoning fallacy of using the bible?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Me: "Gnostic Atheists say that there is no God. Nevertheless, scientists have not come to this Atheism's claim. Are you smarter than scientists? Why doesn't science say there is no God?"

She: "Do I think that scientists are madder than me? Atheists do not do this. The one who claims must prove the claim and not vice versa."

Me: Atheists make a lot of claims. For example, they say there is no God. Does this phrase carry absolutely no meaning and no information? If it does, then they claim that there is no God. So, atheists do claim, and not only their Atheism claims. Atheists repeat the claims of Atheism.

If you don't like the atheists "No belief in God"....
It carries no information. It is just definition of Atheism, which is simply "No God". No new info is presented by "No belief in God".

1. Most of humankind is perfectly sure, there is God. They even feel God and talk to God.
2. Most of humankind is not crazy.
This 1+2 is very strong evidence.

All theists are right in one dogma: There is God. Some theists, like Einstein, are wrong that the God is not a personal god; but they are right that there is God. Polytheists are right that there is God, but wrong about His quantity.

I myself believe in God, but not because God can be proven. The evidence you give is insufficient. 30% of the Irish believe in laprechauns, yet there are no leprechauns. Essentially, any time you make a positive statement like "There is a God" or "God does not exist," you do have the burden of proof. For this reason, many "atheists" who actually believe God does not exist are very careful to simply say, "I simply find no evidence for God," which is not a positive statement, and so doesn't carry the responsibility to prove it.

 

[questfortruth]

"I simply find no evidence for God," which is not a positive statement, and so doesn't carry the responsibility to prove it.

Tell me how the 5 ways of Dr. Thomas Aquinas were debunked.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Tell me how the 5 ways of Dr. Thomas Aquinas were debunked.

That's a discussion that is better for you to have with an atheist than a theist like me.

 

[Sheldon]

Tell me how the 5 ways of Dr. Thomas Aquinas were debunked.

There's a pretty good critique HERE.

Just Google it and you will find plenty of arguments debunking Aquinas's arguments.

 

[KWED]

Stop claiming without evidence that Corinthians is based on hearsay,

Oh dear. This really isn't getting through, is it?

Corinthians account of the resurrection was written by someone who was not a witness to it. Therefore he must have been told about it by someone else (if he didn't make it up). Therefore it is hearsay, by definition.

/ I provided the source for the claim that I made, / that we have material that affirms the resurrection that can be dated within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion.

No you don't! The earliest "material" that mentions the resurrection dates from 20 years after the event.
You merely provided a reference to someone who opined that the story of the resurrection must have been going around before Paul wrote about it. There is no "material" from this date.

I made the claim, you asked for support I provided a source, but exactly as I predicted that doesn’t change anything in your view…. (so why did you asked for the source in the first place?)

Because nothing in what you said supports your claim that the resurrection actually happened. It only shows that there was a resurrection myth established in the period following the crucifixion - which is hardly news. I happily accept that people believed in the resurrection 20 years after the crucifixion, perhaps even earlier. However, people believing in something is not evidence that it actually happened. You really need to try and grasp that basic concept because it is pretty important.

 

[leroy]

You used him as a source, and his opinion is not shared by mainstream biblical scholars,

And will you provide evidence for that absurd claim? Or is it an other case where you can make any assertion without supporting it?

[E] So given you clearly just Googled what you wanted, and have not researched the authors opinion, or read his book, no one else is obliged to disprove your claim.

I provided the "opinion " of an atheist scholar, and provided a source that explains why most scholars date corinthians 1 15 at 2_3 years after the crucifixion.

What else do you whant?

 

[KWED]

So what my argument is not based on the claim that the authors of the gospels meat the witnesses , my argument is simply that legends, gossip, lies ,myths etc are less likely to flourish given that there where witnesses where the gospels where written.

Non sequitur.
1. Myths do flourish, even when there is incontrovertible, contemporary evidence that it is nonsense (eg. The Big Steal)
2. You have not presented any evidence that any witnesses there might have been ever had any contact with the writers of the gospels or anyone who subsequently promoted the myth, so their knowledge would be irrelevant anyway.

As I said before, if you go to new York and claim that Spain invaded New York 50 years ago, it´s unlikely that people would believe you, because witnesses are still alive, people that are 70yo would have noticed (and remember) the Spanish army entering to New York

If you go to a GOP rally and claim the election was not stolen 18 months ago, most people will not believe you, despite there being mountains of undeniable evidence that it definitely was not.

Why is that relevant?

Because you said "we know that [Paul] was alive when the gospels where written". If he never met them, why is your claim relevant?

We know with high degree of certainty that both Paul and the authors of the Gospels where well informed / and that they were not lying. ……………..what else do you whant?

So because there are "well informed" people who aren't lying when they say the election was stolen (because they genuinely believe it), the election was therefore stolen?
I guess you are a good example of why there are people who believe the election was stolen.