Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[leroy]

Which ones?

PAUL and the gospels (you have 5 independent documents)

[
So you think that L. Ron Hubbard is alive on another planet?

No

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

PAUL and the gospels (you have 5 independent documents)

They aren't independent.

Edit: they also aren't generally eyewitness accounts.

No

Then you understand why I don't believe that Jesus is still alive.

 

[leroy]

They aren't independent.

Maybe but you have to support that assertion. Under what basis do you asert that they are not independent?

Then you understand why I don't believe that Jesus is still alive.

I am not following you.....are you saying that Jesus a d Rob are analogous .....how?

 

[night912]

I was published in co-authorship with Dr. Tammelo prior to 2011 AD. Then I took a well sponsored break. Now I am back. With help of Dr. Groote I have published in top moderated elite arXiv.org and we are looking for most suitable journal now.

Does scientists use arXiv.org as a main publisher place?

Majority of them - yes, because journals are very happy, if paper was previously checked by arXiv.org moderation.

Seeing this conversation between you two, I just wanted to mention a few things. It's important that this question and its response be addressed to avoid confusion.

"Does scientists use arXiv.org as a main publisher place?"

The answer to this question is an absolute NO. There's absolutely no papers written by scientists that have been published by arXiv.org. The reason for this is because it's not a scientific journal. The purpose of that Open Acess is to use it as a repository onky and never had the intention to publish papers nor be considered as a scientific journal. Besides a few papers that had been published by official journals, which required permission to be put there by the journal, majority of those papers there are "preprints." This means that this is the final version of the paper that the author will be submitting for peer review. Yes, you've read that correctly. Those papers that have been submitted and accepted for storage in this repository are NOT peer reviewed, therefore, they should not be taken as being equalivolent to a scientific peer reviewed published paper. The requirements that's needed in order for a paper to get accepted is to pass the moderated process. This includes the paper being cohesive in structure, grammatically correct with consistency, not consisting of profanity or discriminating language, qualify in being scientifically relevant with the science topics that's part of their selection.

So once again just to be clear, "arXiv.org" does not publish scientific papers, instead, it's purpose is to provide an openly free and easy access repository for scientific papers whether being chosen for peer review. Just because a paper hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's scientifically incorrect. It's even possible that after being put through the scientific method, it could turn out to be one of the greatest scientific discovery. But it can also be immediately debunk after being peer reviewed and/or somehow mistakenly slipped through the moderated process and was accepted for review, only to find out that it's nothing but pseudoscience. So always remember to be careful when reading the papers from "arXiv.org".


About arXiv.org
Registered users may submit articles to be announced by arXiv. There are no fees or costs for article submission. Submissions to arXiv are subject to a moderation process that classifies material as topical to the subject area and checks for scholarly value. Material is not peer-reviewed by arXiv - the contents of arXiv submissions are wholly the responsibility of the submitter and are presented “as is” without any warranty or guarantee. By hosting works and other materials on this site, arXiv, Cornell University, and their agents do not in any way convey implied approval of the assumptions, methods, results, or conclusions of the work.
Source

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe but you have to support that assertion. Under what basis do you asert that they are not independent?

Have you read the Gospels?

Edit: I ask because they present themselves as all the product of the same religious community... i.e. not independent.

I am not following you.....are you saying that Jesus a d Rob are analogous .....how?

- both were religious leaders who built up a following while alive.
- both died.
- for both of them, shortly after their death, their followers started believing that they weren't really dead.

This is what you said was "conclusive evidence" for Jesus being alive, so it stands to reason that it would also be evidence for L. Ron Hubbard being alive... no?

 

[KWED]

Ofcourse not.....we are talking about ancient history.......nothing can be known for certain. .... but given the evidence

What "evidence"? There is no evidence. There are only unsupported claims. Hearsay.

we can stablish with high degree of certainty that the disciples (and others) saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection......agree? ... (if tbis is what scholars claim, unddr what basis would you disagree?)

This has been explained several times. The only claims that have a "high degree of certainty" is that the Jesus character was Baptised by JtB, and that he was executed by the Romans by crucifixion.
Everything else is conjecture based on hearsay. Historians agree on this. Really not sure why you keep claiming otherwise.

Again most scholars agree on that early Christians saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus.

I have already asked you what you mean by "early Christians".
A small number or people may have witnessed something that they believed was Jesus risen from the dead, but we have no way of knowing. No one may actually have seen any such thing.

...... so if you disagree with scholars its fare to ask.....in your opinion.what are they missing? What do you know that they fail to grasp?

Historians do not agree with your claim. You are simply wrong to claim they do.

Your facts in red are wrong , we do have multiple independent sources for the appearances......

Oh really? What are those sources, because historians are unaware of them. A Nobel prize in history awaits!

The appearance to Peter is independently attested by Paul and Luke, the appearance to the Twelve by Luke and John and Paul, We also have independent witness to Galilean appearances in Mark, Matthew, and John, as well as to the women in Matthew and John.

Oh. So the "independent, corroborative evidence" is the Bible. How disappointing, if not entirely unexpected.

The apostoles where not expecting a resurrection, resurrections in this context where very "anti Jewish " and some witnesses where not even christian / they thought Jesus was a fraud

Oh my. The confusion mounts. Jesus was not a Christian. Neither were the apostles. They were all Jewish.
Also, Jews at the time were expecting a messianic saviour from the line of David. Paul himself (your unimpeachable source) claims that Jesus was resurrected "according to scripture".

 

[KWED]

These are your rules, not mine , you said that any information recived by someoneelse is hearasay ......so by those standards the labeling of the stegosaurus is hearsay.

TBH, I'm getting bored with your constant dishonesty/stupidity. Here is the definition I have posted several times now...
Hearsay: Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated (OED)
The authenticity of dinosaur fossils can be substantiated.
The authenticity of claims that a dean person came back to life by magic cannot be substantiated.

Got it?

Paul

Paul was not a witness to the resurrection.

James John

Those accounts are unverifiable.

and other 500 individuals.

Yes the original source can be checkedand and verified

You are just making stuff up now. Paul is the earliest source we have. There are no earlier sources.

we have lther independent sources claiming the same things.

No you don't.
.

1 nobody claimed to have seen someone steeling the election.

Yes they did. Many people claim they have hard evidence that the election was stolen.

2 nobody was willing to die for that belief

At least one person did, and hundreds of others will serve lengthy prison sentences, lose their jobs, etc.

If you provide examples of 1 and 2 then sure we can stablish as fact that some people saw something that they interpreted as a fraudulent activity intended to steel the elections.

So you admit that your argument that people believing something happened means it probably did happen is complete nonsense.

 

[KWED]

Maybe, but the resurrection is the exception, we do have support and corroboration for this event

Your desperation for it to have happened is not support and corroboration.

Maybe, but all scholars agree that there is some historical stuff in the gospels........including the fact that early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection.

No they don't. Stop making stuff up.
This has deteriorated from (albeit somewhat repetitive) debate into you just shouting lies with your fingers in your ears.

 

[KWED]

What corroboration?

ThE bIbLe!

 

[KWED]

So what? That doesn't change the fact that the material dates to within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion.

What "material"?
You really have no idea what is going on here, do you?

If today you right a book about the holocaust and you include quotes from sources written in t 1948.....then your book would be 2022 but people could say that is has material that dates within 3 years after the holocaust...... (the same happens with Paul )

Oh dear god!
There is the written source from 1948! That exists and can be checked. Paul has no earlier sources. There is no book from 36AD that Paul is quoting that we can check.
Surely you can't actually have made that argument in good faith? Even my cat could see the fatal flaw in it.

 

[KWED]

So do you deny the historicity of these facts?

1. is generally accepted. All the rest are mere unverified claims. They are not historical facts.
You really need to try and get your head around this. It will save you much trouble.

 

[KWED]

No,but its convincing evidence that the resurrection is not a legend nor a rumour nor a telephone game type of thing that developed through time. /

Millions believed the election was stolen less than a year after the event. But that belief is nonsense.
So, we know that many people can genuinely believe in nonsense, soon after the nonsensical claim was first made.
Therefore your claim that such a belief is "evidence" for the belief being true is demonstrable nonsense.
Like your entire argument.

 

[KWED]

Disbeliever in no way a believer.

A believer in Christianity is a disbeliever in Hinduism.
There are many other examples.
So much for you being a "king of logic".

 

[KWED]

It is incorrect to use religious term "belief" in Disbelief. Atheists is better to say "2+2=4" than to say "I believe, 2+2=4"

"Belief" is not "a religious term".

 

[KWED]

the fact that we have a source that dates within 3 years after the resurrection

No you don't. You are now simply lying. The earliest source you have is Paul, 20 years after the event. All historians agree on this.

The resurrection hypothesis is grounded on the truth of 5 facts most scholars agree with

More lies. Historians do not agree that these are historical facts.

I'm done. There is only so much barefaced dishonesty one can take.
What would Jesus think about you deliberately lying in his name? He'd be sad, wouldn't he. He would wonder why you didn't take his message to heart. He'd be upset that you value your pride over his memory.
Poor Jesus.

 

[KWED]

Seeing this conversation between you two, I just wanted to mention a few things. It's important that this question and its response be addressed to avoid confusion.

"Does scientists use arXiv.org as a main publisher place?"

The answer to this question is an absolute NO. There's absolutely no papers written by scientists that have been published by arXiv.org. The reason for this is because it's not a scientific journal. The purpose of that Open Acess is to use it as a repository onky and never had the intention to publish papers nor be considered as a scientific journal. Besides a few papers that had been published by official journals, which required permission to be put there by the journal, majority of those papers there are "preprints." This means that this is the final version of the paper that the author will be submitting for peer review. Yes, you've read that correctly. Those papers that have been submitted and accepted for storage in this repository are NOT peer reviewed, therefore, they should not be taken as being equalivolent to a scientific peer reviewed published paper. The requirements that's needed in order for a paper to get accepted is to pass the moderated process. This includes the paper being cohesive in structure, grammatically correct with consistency, not consisting of profanity or discriminating language, qualify in being scientifically relevant with the science topics that's part of their selection.

So once again just to be clear, "arXiv.org" does not publish scientific papers, instead, it's purpose is to provide an openly free and easy access repository for scientific papers whether being chosen for peer review. Just because a paper hasn't been published in a peer reviewed journal, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's scientifically incorrect. It's even possible that after being put through the scientific method, it could turn out to be one of the greatest scientific discovery. But it can also be immediately debunk after being peer reviewed and/or somehow mistakenly slipped through the moderated process and was accepted for review, only to find out that it's nothing but pseudoscience. So always remember to be careful when reading the papers from "arXiv.org".


About arXiv.org
Registered users may submit articles to be announced by arXiv. There are no fees or costs for article submission. Submissions to arXiv are subject to a moderation process that classifies material as topical to the subject area and checks for scholarly value. Material is not peer-reviewed by arXiv - the contents of arXiv submissions are wholly the responsibility of the submitter and are presented “as is” without any warranty or guarantee. By hosting works and other materials on this site, arXiv, Cornell University, and their agents do not in any way convey implied approval of the assumptions, methods, results, or conclusions of the work.
Source

I have already tried to explain this to him, but he keeps insisting that it is some sort of grand intellectual endorsement to upload a paper to arXiv. I suggested that if he wants a pat on the back, he should let me know when it is published in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

[leroy]

Have you read the Gospels?

Edit: I ask because they present themselves as all the product of the same religious community... i.e. not independent.

So what ? Being part of the same religious comunity doesn't make them non independent

- both were religious leaders who built up a following while alive.
- both died.
- for both of them, shortly after their death, their followers started believing that they weren't really dead.

Again....no idea who this Ron is, but if :

1 his followers claim to have seen him in an other planet

2 they where willing to die (or to lose something) for that belive

Then sure I will grant thet they where being honest and they honestry and trully think that they saw him in the other planet.

This is what you said was "conclusive evidence" for Jesus being alive, so it stands to reason that it would also be evidence for L. Ron Hubbard being alive... no?

Wrong at so many levels
1 no i didnt say that there is conclusive evidence for the resurrection (i said that it is the best explanation we currently have)

2 I said that there is conclusive evidence that the apostoles saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus.

3 The case for the resurrection is a cumulative case with multiple lines of evidence..... if you whant to argue that Ron and Jesus are analogous then you should consider all the evidence and not just a portion.
This is a summary that represents short case for the resurrection
The Resurrection of Jesus | Reasonable Faith

Please read the article and spot the flaws, spot the specific points that you disagree with.

 

[leroy]

No you don't. You are now simply lying. The earliest source you have is Paul, 20 years after the event. All historians agree on this.

And Paul has sources (creeds) in his letters that are dated within 2 or 3 yars after the crucifixion

More lies. Historians do not agree that these are historical facts.

Yes they do

I'm done. There is only so much barefaced dishonesty one can take.
What would Jesus think about you deliberately lying in his name? He'd be sad, wouldn't he. He would wonder why you didn't take his message to heart. He'd be upset that you value your pride over his memory.
Poor Jesus.

So you are cornered, you can refute my claims, you cant admit that you are wrong.....so your way out is to call me a lier

 

[leroy]

What "material"?
You really have no idea what is going on here, do you?

Oh dear god!
There is the written source from 1948! That exists and can be checked. Paul has no earlier sources. There is no book from 36AD that Paul is quoting that we can check.
Surely you can't actually have made that argument in good faith? Even my cat could see the fatal flaw in it.

I am just the messenger, i am simply telling you what scholars say.


Brilliant people (including atheists scholars) have analyzed corinthians 1 15 / the words, the context the style etc.....and have concluded that the text has material that can be date to within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion.

The best part is that tbeir works are published and easy to get......so if they are wrong why dont you explain why are they wrong? What are they missing?

 

[leroy]

1. is generally accepted. All the rest are mere unverified claims. They are not historical facts.
You really need to try and get your head around this. It will save you much trouble.

Ok point 2 jesus was buried



After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. This fact is highly significant because it means, contrary to radical critics like John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, that the location of Jesus’ burial site was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case, the disciples could never have proclaimed his resurrection in Jerusalem if the tomb had not been empty. New Testament researchers have established this first fact on the basis of evidence such as the following:

1. Jesus’ burial is attested in the very old tradition quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15.3-5:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:

. . . that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
and that he was buried,
and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

Paul not only uses the typical rabbinical terms “received” and “delivered” with regard to the information he is passing on to the Corinthians, but vv. 3-5 are a highly stylized four-line formula filled with non-Pauline characteristics. This has convinced all scholars that Paul is, as he says, quoting from an old tradition which he himself received after becoming a Christian. This tradition probably goes back at least to Paul’s fact-finding visit to Jerusalem around AD 36, when he spent two weeks with Cephas and James (Gal. 1.18). It thus dates to within five years after Jesus’ death. So short a time span and such personal contact make it idle to talk of legend in this case.

2. The burial story is part of very old source material used by Mark in writing his gospel. The gospels tend to consist of brief snapshots of Jesus’ life which are loosely connected and not always chronologically arranged. But when we come to the passion story we do have one, smooth, continuously-running narrative. This suggests that the passion story was one of Mark’s sources of information in writing his gospel. Now most scholars think Mark is already the earliest gospel, and Mark’s source for Jesus’ passion is, of course, even older. Comparison of the narratives of the four gospels shows that their accounts do not diverge from one another until after the burial. This implies that the burial account was part of the passion story. Again, its great age militates against its being legendary.

3. As a member of the Jewish court that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention. There was strong resentment against the Jewish leadership for their role in the condemnation of Jesus (I Thess. 2.15). It is therefore highly improbable that Christians would invent a member of the court that condemned Jesus who honors Jesus by giving him a proper burial instead of allowing him to be dispatched as a common criminal.

4. No other competing burial story exists. If the burial by Joseph were fictitious, then we would expect to find either some historical trace of what actually happened to Jesus’ corpse or at least some competing legends. But all our sources are unanimous on Jesus’ honorable interment by Joseph.

For these and other reasons, the majority of New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is “one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus. [1]"
The Resurrection of Jesus | Reasonable Faith

So what is wrong with this evidence?why isn't this evidence good enough to convince you that Jesus was buried?