• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Burden of Proof is on Atheists

joelr

Well-Known Member
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)

No, the best explanation is this is a myth and is religious syncretism since world saviors (virgin born) were predicted by the Persians, who occupied Israel from 500BC-300BC.
And they were occupied by the Greeks 100BC when Hellenism was huge and influential on all surrounding religions.

Does this sound familiar? This is all from Hellenism -
-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.

-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.

-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.

-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme
-
- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.


-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.


-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)


-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)


- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries

Hellenistic religion - Beliefs, practices, and institutions


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.


FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.


That is what a myth says? Wiki on the town - "The historical location of Arimathea is uncertain,"
WLC thinks if this didn't happen there would be some other information about where Jesus was buried. Uh, not if the whole thing was a made up story?????


FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.

WLC admits Mark is using the old passion source. But since it's so simple it can't be imbelleshed. Whoops, except it fits the mythotype plot device to a T.
Again, the explanation that it's a savior demigod myth fits far better.
It's just hat religious folks can't say that so they have to do this tapdance to make it somehow seem plausible.


FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

Yeah, the story does say that. And Morgoth returned from the dead as well in Middle Earth. This is your source? Myths?

FACT #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.
The disciples were great. You do realize they are fictional characters with no evidence of being historical? This is like arguing for Thor and citing Marvel comics?

It gets worse:


1. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and why the Christian faith came into being.

It's a fictional story and it always will be? This is not evidence? But as a story it has cohesion. The Greek school produced good writers.

2. It has great explanatory power: it explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite his earlier public execution, and so forth.

Yes, Mark was a great writer. It's good fiction. He knows ring structure, chisasmus, tansfiguration, this is Greek school fiction of that time period.

3. It is plausible: given the historical context of Jesus’ own unparalleled life and claims, the resurrection serves as divine confirmation of those radical claims.
Same with Inanna and Romulus. And every supernatural story. Do you actually believe this nonsense he's selling?


4. It is not ad hoc or contrived: it requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists. And even that needn’t be an additional hypothesis if one already believes that God exists.

No, it requires only one hypothesis. Religions are fictional stories created from older fictional stories. And look, this plays out exactly like that!


5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis: “God raised Jesus from the dead” doesn’t in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don’t rise naturally from the dead. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Yes and one in Islam accepts whatever miracles happened on their watch. Mormons accept the Joe Smith miracle. It's what you do when you don't care about what is actually true.

6. It far outstrips any of its rival hypotheses in meeting conditions (

No it doesn't. Not even a little. The OT is a bunch of Mesopotamian/Babylonian myths and then we get Greek and Persian myths. Yes, more attention and apologetics were applied to Christianity. Maybe because Rome made it law in 380. So much for free thinking? So smart theologians had a choice, think about how great God is and expand the theology or sit in prison before prisoners rights were a thing.


When WLC is your source you are no longer interested in truth in any meaningful way.

 
Last edited:

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
No, the best explanation is this is a myth and is religious syncretism since world saviors (virgin born) were predicted by the Persians, who occupied Israel from 500BC-300BC.
And they were occupied by the Greeks 100BC when Hellenism was huge and influential on all surrounding religions.

Does this sound familiar? This is all from Hellenism -
-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.

-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.

-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.

-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme
-
- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.


-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.


-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)


-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)


- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries

Hellenistic religion - Beliefs, practices, and institutions





FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.


That is what a myth says? Wiki on the town - "The historical location of Arimathea is uncertain,"
WLC thinks if this didn't happen there would be some other information about where Jesus was buried. Uh, not if the whole thing was a made up story?????


FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.

WLC admits Mark is using the old passion source. But since it's so simple it can't be imbelleshed. Whoops, except it fits the mythotype plot device to a T.
Again, the explanation that it's a savior demigod myth fits far better.
It's just hat religious folks can't say that so they have to do this tapdance to make it somehow seem plausible.


FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

Yeah, the story does say that. And Morgoth returned from the dead as well in Middle Earth. This is your source? Myths?

FACT #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.
The disciples were great. You do realize they are fictional characters with no evidence of being historical? This is like arguing for Thor and citing Marvel comics?

It gets worse:


1. It has great explanatory scope: it explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and why the Christian faith came into being.

It's a fictional story and it always will be? This is not evidence? But as a story it has cohesion. The Greek school produced good writers.

2. It has great explanatory power: it explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite his earlier public execution, and so forth.

Yes, Mark was a great writer. It's good fiction. He knows ring structure, chisasmus, tansfiguration, this is Greek school fiction of that time period.

3. It is plausible: given the historical context of Jesus’ own unparalleled life and claims, the resurrection serves as divine confirmation of those radical claims.
Same with Inanna and Romulus. And every supernatural story. Do you actually believe this nonsense he's selling?


4. It is not ad hoc or contrived: it requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists. And even that needn’t be an additional hypothesis if one already believes that God exists.

No, it requires only one hypothesis. Religions are fictional stories created from older fictional stories. And look, this plays out exactly like that!


5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis: “God raised Jesus from the dead” doesn’t in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people don’t rise naturally from the dead. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Yes and one in Islam accepts whatever miracles happened on their watch. Mormons accept the Joe Smith miracle. It's what you do when you don't care about what is actually true.

6. It far outstrips any of its rival hypotheses in meeting conditions (

No it doesn't. Not even a little. The OT is a bunch of Mesopotamian/Babylonian myths and then we get Greek and Persian myths. Yes, more attention and apologetics were applied to Christianity. Maybe because Rome made it law in 380. So much for free thinking? So smart theologians had a choice, think about how great God is and expand the theology or sit in prison before prisoners rights were a thing.


When WLC is your source you are no longer interested in truth in any meaningful way.
A clear and comprehensive rebuttal of Leroy's arguments.
However, you know that he will simply reply with "We have source material from eye-witness accounts of the resurrection from 2 years after the crucifixion. All historians agree on this!"
It's like a broken record.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Still peddling this canard I see, the evidence for the Stegosaurus is not SOLELY based on hearsay, unlike the biblical myth of the resurrection.
Yes the guy who did the labeling in the museum, is tagging fossils based on hearsay (using your defintion) / somebody told him that the fossil is authentic and he label it as such.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Yes the guy who did the labeling in the museum, is tagging fossils based on hearsay (using your defintion) / somebody told him that the fossil is authentic and he label it as such.

What risible nonsense you post, as I explained the evidence for the Stegosaurus is not SOLELY based on hearsay, unlike the biblical myth of the resurrection. The NHM has experts and laboratories to verify fossils, and their work is subject to peer review.

Earth Sciences Department | Natural History Museum

Dinosaurs research group
As anyone can see, the museum use experts from universities across the UK, experts in the field of palaeontology, to validate fossils and peer review the research that authenticates them. I have already post a site, giving an expansive explanation of the exhaustive scientific methods used to validate and authenticate fossils.

I'm afraid the more you post on this, the more you are embarrassing yourself.
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
This is not what mainstream scholars claim, all you quoted was a religious website making claims. You couldn't even offer anything beyond the claimed quote from the atheist professor. When asked to substantiate the claim you could not, and laughably told others to go research it for themselves. All I could find was a book reference. not that it matters, as mainstream biblical scholars don't agree. If you want to cite a credible biblical scholar, who happens to be an atheist, then try Bart Ehrman, his credentials are at least impeccable.

"Bart Denton Ehrman is an agnostic atheist American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks."
Your standards are unrealistically to high, apparently providing a source from an atheist scholar is not enough I also have to present a source from your own favorite scholar.

I wonder if you would allow the same type of BS with the stegosaurus “prove to me that the fossil is authentic, but I will only accept the testimony of David E. Fastovsky (a YEC paleontologist)
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Your standards are unrealistically to high,

Too not to, and of course you want me to set my bar for belief to naught but subjective hearsay, so you can pretend this lends some credence to your belief. I am afraid you will have to learn to live with the fact that I don't share your penchant for superstition.

apparently providing a source from an atheist scholar is not enough I also have to present a source from your own favorite scholar.

All you provided was a single author's claim, allegedly from a book, you could not offer any citation when asked, just the religious site you had the quote from. More problematic is that mainstream biblical scholars do not agree. I have no "favourite scholar" so this is another piece of sophistry.

I wonder if you would allow the same type of BS with the stegosaurus “prove to me that the fossil is authentic, but I will only accept the testimony of David E. Fastovsky (a YEC paleontologist)

YECS are not basing their claims on science and its methods, they are basing their beliefs and claims on archaic superstition and religious creations myths. You are free to believe their religious propaganda if you wish, but I lend it no credence.
 
Last edited:

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Interestingly you haven’t presented any evidence that is not hearsay

Earth Sciences Department | Natural History Museum

Dinosaurs research group
As anyone can see, the museum use experts from universities across the UK, experts in the field of palaeontology, to validate fossils and peer review the research that authenticates them. I have already post a site, giving an expansive explanation of the exhaustive scientific methods used to validate and authenticate fossils.

:rolleyes::facepalm:

You're still struggling with the word hearsay I see.

Hearsay
noun
  1. information received from other people which cannot be substantiated
Since there is an entire field of scientific endeavour, using a vast array of objective scientific methods (as you know because I have posted links to it more than once) substantiating the claims, it is not hearsay see. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yes the guy who did the labeling in the museum, is tagging fossils based on hearsay (using your defintion) / somebody told him that the fossil is authentic and he label it as such.
And that someone can clearly explain, and provide hard evidence for the authenticity of the fossil.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Your standards are unrealistically to high, apparently providing a source from an atheist scholar is not enough I also have to present a source from your own favorite scholar.

I wonder if you would allow the same type of BS with the stegosaurus “prove to me that the fossil is authentic, but I will only accept the testimony of David E. Fastovsky (a YEC paleontologist)
Science doesn't rely on testimony. It relies on observable, tested facts.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Science doesn't rely on testimony. It relies on observable, tested facts.
He has had this explained multiple times, and each time dishonestly tries to pretend it is not the case. So he can pretend unevidenced superstition based on second hand hearsay, has some parity with scientific knowledge or facts. The rank dishonesty is manifest of course.

He seems pretty annoyed because a few people have pointed out that the gospels are little more than second and third hand hearsay, written decades after the fact from unknown authors. So now he's trying to pretend all scientific information is hearsay, bless. It's actually pretty amusing.
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
A clear and comprehensive rebuttal of Leroy's arguments.
However, you know that he will simply reply with "We have source material from eye-witness accounts of the resurrection from 2 years after the crucifixion. All historians agree on this!"
It's like a broken record.

I don't know what he's talking about?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
The NT proves with high degree of certainty that:
1 Jesus died on the cross
2 was buried
3 the tomb as found empty
4 early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection.
5 Paul and James became christian after the crusifixtion


1. No it doesn't, what we have a second and third hand hearsay from largely unknown authors written decades after the fact. Nothing about the crucifixion is established with a "high degree of certainty", that is ludicrous hyperbole. Though most scholars accept it happened.
2. So what?
3. There is no objective evidence for this, only unsubstantiated hearsay, but again so what?
4. We have no objective evidence for this, let alone a high degree of certainty, however they could have attended with independent witnesses and video cameras, and I would still need more than an unexplained event, to believe something supernatural had occurred.
5. So what?



.

From your responses one can’t tell if you affirm reject these facts.

So please explain do affirm that any of these facts is likely to be wrong.?

If yes please tell me which fact is the more unlikely to be true, so that I can provide evidence for that fact

If you grant these facts then please tell me what explanation do you suggest and why you think is better than the resurrection.

All you comments will be ignored until you address this with clear and unambiguous answers.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
From your responses one can’t tell if you affirm reject these facts.

So please explain do affirm that any of these facts is likely to be wrong.?

If yes please tell me which fact is the more unlikely to be true, so that I can provide evidence for that fact

If you grant these facts then please tell me what explanation do you suggest and why you think is better than the resurrection.

All you comments will be ignored until you address this with clear and unambiguous answers.

I gave my answers, read them or don't, I'm not typing them out again, just so you can ignore them again because you don't like the answers.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No, the best explanation is this is a myth and is religious syncretism since world saviors (virgin born) were predicted by the Persians, who occupied Israel from 500BC-300BC.



Granted, as a Christian I believe in the virgin birth. But I understand that the evidence indicates that it´s probably a myth.





FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.


That is what a myth says? Wiki on the town - "The historical location of Arimathea is uncertain,"
WLC thinks if this didn't happen there would be some other information about where Jesus was buried. Uh, not if the whole thing was a made up story?????


FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.

WLC admits Mark is using the old passion source. But since it's so simple it can't be imbelleshed. Whoops, except it fits the mythotype plot device to a T.
Again, the explanation that it's a savior demigod myth fits far better.
It's just hat religious folks can't say that so they have to do this tapdance to make it somehow seem plausible.


FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

Yeah, the story does say that. And Morgoth returned from the dead as well in Middle Earth. This is your source? Myths?

FACT #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.
The disciples were great. You do realize they are fictional characters with no evidence of being historical? This is like arguing for Thor and citing Marvel comics?

t!

So do you reject those alleged historical facts?


 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I gave my answers, read them or don't, I'm not typing them out again, just so you can ignore them again because you don't like the answers.
OK, so do not exoect any answers from me, until you address those points with clear and unambiguous answers.
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
And that someone can clearly explain, and provide hard evidence for the authenticity of the fossil.
And that someone can clearly explain, and provide hard evidence for the authenticity of the fossil.
Maybe but still hearsay (according to the definition provided) according to the definition any information provided by someone else is hearsay
Regardless if it´s well supported or not.
 
Top