Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[questfortruth]

So since I am not a Christian you forbidd me to say Jesus Christ?

You can say it, but you do not know it.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You can say it, but you do not know it.

How do you judge if i know or not?

You are aware what you speak is your personal views and opinions, and not something from christian teaching?

 

[questfortruth]

How do you judge if i know or not?

But Jesus Christ comes from Bible. If you put Bible in doubt, about calling Jesus God, then you put Bible in doubt. Hence, you cannot use word Jesus Christ, because its source is doubtful.

 

[Spirit of Light]

But Jesus Christ comes from Bible. If you put Bible in doubt, about calling Jesus God, then you put Bible in doubt. Hence, you cannot use word Jesus Christ, because its source is doubtful.

You are aware that in the Quran Jesus are mention? But under the name Isa?

Do you believe that just because christianity is founded from the teaching of Jesus, that other religions has no clue about who He was?

In islam Jesus is seen as a very highly prophet

 

[Spirit of Light]

At the moment the burden of proof lays on you @questfortruth

 

[Valjean]

First name: Jesus. Last name: Christ.

Last name? Were last names common among Jewish communities back then? Wouldn't most people have referred to him as Jesus ben Joseph or something?
Christ means "annointed," it's a title, not a "last name."

But Jesus Christ comes from Bible. If you put Bible in doubt, about calling Jesus God, then you put Bible in doubt. Hence, you cannot use word Jesus Christ, because its source is doubtful.

I have no idea what you're saying, here. Please rephrase.

 

[KWED]

Then they cannot use term Jesus Christ. It comes together with definition. Its definition: God.

"Jesus" is just a name derived from "Joshua".
"Christ" is from the Greek for "anointed one".
Neither means "god". It is simply a title.

Some people (Christians) associate "Jesus Christ" with "god", but that is up to them. It isn't the definition of the word. Using it does not imply acceptance of the association favoured by Christians. Kinda like how calling Elizabeth Windsor "the queen" does not imply support for the monarchy.

 

[KWED]

It is impossible to get endorsement.

That's a weird thing to say, considering you can't publish on there without endorsement. Did you get rejected?

 

[KWED]

First name: Jesus. Last name: Christ.

First name: Queen. Last name: Elizabeth.

But Jesus Christ comes from Bible. If you put Bible in doubt, about calling Jesus God, then you put Bible in doubt. Hence, you cannot use word Jesus Christ, because its source is doubtful.

That makes literally no sense.

 

[KWED]

Well most scholars accept these facts ,so in your opinion what are they missing? What information do you have that you think scholars are missing?

You keep repeating this false claim.
The only "facts" that historians agree are pretty much certain are:
1. A character known as Jesus existed.
2. He was Baptisd by John the Baptist.
3. He was executed by the Romans using crucifixion.
Everything else ranges from speculation to fantasy.

We know tons of stuff about them.....but the relevant things are
1 they where non Christians (on their view jesus was a blasfemist )
2 they had an experience / they saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen jesus
3 the became followers of christ to the point that they where persecute6and willing to die for Jesus.

1. The source for these claims are not verifiable.
2. So what? History is full of people who joined an ideological cause that they were prepared to die for.

What does this proves?

Nothing.

Imagine that someone like Richard Dawkins witnesses something that he interpreted as a miracle and becomes a Christian/ as a consequence he losses his job, his followers, people stop buying his books, etc.

Wouldn't that strongly suggest that he witnesses a real miracle? A vague experience or something that could have been explained by hallucinations, or other natural phenomena would have not convince someone lik Dawkins. .....At the very least this will prove that something really strage and extraordinary happened.

There would be two possible explanations: either he witnessed an event where the laws of nature were suspended, or he experienced a psychotic event of some kind.
Of the two, only one is reasonable without independent verification.

Paul and janes (specifically Paul) where like Dawkins "strong non believers" so the experience that they had was something big and extraordinary.... (it had to be something good enough to change their minds) .... so if it wasn't a true miracles what other alternavive do you suggest?

Firstly, the stories of their conversions are unverifiable. They might have ben conscious, deliberate choices.
Second, we know that people will often follow charismatic leaders, sometimes to their death, even if that person is talking nonsense. It happened all the time. Just look at The Big Steal (a perfect example, that you keep avoiding).
Third, we know that people suffer psychotic events that appear absolutely real to the subject.

So, given that we have several, plausible, reasonable, demonstrable explanations for their actions - why do you insist that it must have been magic, especially when there is zero evidence that magic even exists?

 

[KWED]

One cannot use any term without its definition. They do not use the term.

Anyone can use the term "god", regardless of belief or lack of it. You appear to be floundering.

 

[KWED]

Atheists are making bold claim.

There is nothing "bold" about dismissing a claim for which there is no supporting evidence.

What is bold is claiming that not only does magic exist, but that it is a special, specific type of magic. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to provide convincing evidence for your claim.
The fact that you can't explains why religionists so often attempt to switch the burden of proof.

 

[KWED]

But Prof. Riemann has made the huge claim: all zeroes of zeta-function belong to the critical line.

He has never demonstrated that.

That isn't a claim. It is an hypothesis, a proposal - "if... then..."
Surely a mathematical genius and renowned published author like yourself would have known this?

 

[KWED]

"Forgive them, Father, for they do not know what they are saying." (Bible).

Jesus Christ = Joshua the Anointed One.
Yep, seems like I do know what I am saying.
And anyway, he wasn't the messiah, he was a very naughty boy.

 

[Sheldon]

Or do you want everyone to think exactly as you do?

I think you may have nailed it there.

 

[Sheldon]

First name: Jesus. Last name: Christ.

But Jesus Christ comes from Bible. If you put Bible in doubt, about calling Jesus God, then you put Bible in doubt. Hence, you cannot use word Jesus Christ, because its source is doubtful.

You have a rather tedious penchant for issuing absolutes, as if you alone understand reality.

You won't care of course, closed minded people never do, but there is a common logical fallacy called an argument from assertion fallacy. It seems to be the Achilles heal of most of your rational.

 

[Sheldon]

Well most scholars accept these facts ,so in your opinion what are they missing? What information do you have that you think scholars are missing?

That's a very obvious piece of sophistry, what biblical scholars can demonstrate sufficient evidence for might be called an historical fact, but no biblical scholar would consider the supernatural claims in the bible to facts, they're a matter of religious belief.

This has been explained to you more than once, that just because some natural aspects of the bible might be true, that doesn't remotely represent sufficient objective evidence for the supernatural claims in it.

 

[Sheldon]

1 they where non Christians (on their view jesus was a blasfemist )
2 they had an experience / they saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen jesus
3 the became followers of christ to the point that they where persecute6and willing to die for jesus.
What does this proves?

That you have a penchant for stating the obvious, and spinning it into hyperbole using a false equivalence fallacy, and that you can't spell blasphemy?

1. As was Jesus of course, hardly news is it.
2. Conjecture based on subjective hearsay.
3. That people are inclined towards ignorance and superstition?

 

[Sheldon]

Imagine that someone like Richard Dawkins witnesses something that he interpreted as a miracle and becomes a Christian/ as a consequence he losses his job, his followers, people stop buying his books, etc.

Why would I care about an unevidenced subjective belief, regardless who held it or why?

Wouldn't that strongly suggest that he witnesses a real miracle?

It wouldn't suggest it at all, let alone strongly. Why on earth would it?

A vague experience or something that could have been explained by hallucinations, or other natural phenomena would have not convince someone lik Dawkins. .....

Firstly it hasn't, you're letting your fake hypothetical run away with you, secondly you are using an appeal to authority fallacy, for once look it up and understand why it makes the claim irrational.

At the very least this will prove that something really strage and extraordinary happened.

You do love the hyperbole of the word prove, it would be strong evidence that Professor Dawkins had had a rather bizarre and inexplicable paradigm shift in the way he reasoned. However firstly it hasn't happened, and secondly it wouldn't in and of itself be sufficient to draw any objective conclusions about what did or did not happen.

Paul and janes (specifically Paul) where like Dawkins "strong non believers"

That is a particular absurd falsehood, they were in fact strong believers, steeped in superstition of that epoch, and hardly rational and scientific thinkers. This is a very poor analogy, even allowing that most people are anachronistic, you are describing very different people.

so the experience that they had was something big and extraordinary....

To go from one unevidenced superstition to another, hardly? You are simply interpreting the narrative to fit your own strong beliefs. In order to be objective one must bend one's beliefs to fit the facts, not the other way around.

(it had to be something good enough to change their minds) .... so if it wasn't a true miracles what other alternavive do you suggest?

Oh dear, you're back to trying to reverse the burden of proof again, using another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

One cannot use any term without its definition.

Rubbish, that is an absurdly erroneous claim. You are conflating what you want with what actually is.

They do not use the term.

Jesus Christ. Wrong again...