Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[leroy]

ThTHERE IS NO CONSENSUS AMONG HISTORICAL SCHOLARS FOR THE CLAIMS YOU MADE,.

Ok provide your non biased peer reviewed sources supporting that assertion.

 

[leroy]

It is known that Luke took Mark and added his own details? ?

Yes, that is my point; Luke used Mark and added his own details.

None of my claims that I have made so far depend on the existence e of Q nor denies “Marks priority” So I don’t really see your point in sharing all that information,

Given that most of the verifiable details that Luke added are true, then at the very least he disserves the benefit of the doubt on the details that can’t be verified.

 

[leroy]

Sorry that is a hypothetical and a rather weird one. Why would there be suppression? History is usually not subject to the same sort of suppression that religious beliefs are.

You simply do not like the fact that you only have one source. And it is not a very reliable one.

The point that I am making is that the act of joining multiple independent sources and make a book out if these sources doesn’t “transform” the original sources in to “dependent sources”

If Paul and Mark where independent before the Council of Nicaea they were still independent after the council.

The point is that the empty tomb is supported by 6 different sources, none of them copied from each other, nor for a common source. So we do have 6 independent sources .

If you what to argue otherwise, you would have to show that they copied from each other or that they all come from a common source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point that I am making is that the act of joining multiple independent sources and make a book out if these sources doesn’t “transform” the original sources in to “dependent sources”

If Paul and Mark where independent before the Council of Nicaea they were still independent after the council.

The point is that the empty tomb is supported by 6 different sources, none of them copied from each other, nor for a common source. So we do have 6 independent sources .

If you what to argue otherwise, you would have to show that they copied from each other or that they all come from a common source.

But it does. Your analogy was poorly thought out. You did not destroy all but six with an agenda to preserve a chosen narrative. If you had done that then yes, you would have only one source.

 

[leroy]

But it does. Your analogy was poorly thought out. You did not destroy all but six with an agenda to preserve a chosen narrative. If you had done that then yes, you would have only one source.

Lets say I did.

I will still have 6 independent sources; these sources would have an agenda,(biased) but they would still be independent in the sense that they didn’t copied from each other. (nor from a common source)

The thing is that even if these are biased towards promoting the “greatness” of alexander, and even if the authors are willing to lie in order to make Alexander “look good” in would still be very unlikely that 2 independent authors (let alone 6) to have invented the exact same lie.

 

[Sheldon]

This is boring and tedious / you are suppose to quote a scholar (historian if you whant) that claims that he will only accept evidence outside the Bible

Well done you completely ignored my post:

"I said historians, and no historical scholar would accept a source as independent if it could not be substantiated outside of biblical claims, that is axiomatic. You don't see to know the difference between a theological scholar who also holds a subjective belief, and an historical scholar whose work has been peer reviewed. Which of course amply explains your embarrassing gaff over your claim that 75% of "scholars" belief the biblical myth of an empty tomb, since the Christian author you cited has not submitted that work for peer review by other historians, indeed he has refused requests to do so, as I evidenced in an earlier post, and you ignored.

Not all scholars are always voicing historical evidence, one can be an expert on Harry Potter, this does not mean mean their opinion that wizards are real is scholarly, you seem unable to grasp this."

Though of course by now, I think we can all see why you're keen to simply move on with naught but hand waving.

 

[Sheldon]

If you have an alternative for "the tomb was empty " you are expected to support that alternative, that is all i am saying

Yes, repeatedly, even though you must know by now this irrational assertion is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. No one has to provide any alternative, it is for those making the claim there was an empty tomb to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence, and all you have is second and third hand hearsay, from largely unknown sources, which are known to have plagiarised each other.

 

[Sheldon]

The conclusion of a study doesn't becomes wring just because you didn't like the methodology.

Nice straw man fallacy, as that is not remotely what I said, and just to highlight your dishonesty here, I will post the facts again for all to see, that you haven't the integrity to acknowledge your 75% of scholars claim was BS.

Sheldon said: ↑
You're quoting the subjective opinion of a Christian, who citied 3400 article, but whose work was never peer reviewed, a basic requirement for any credible historian, who has refused multiple request to submit has data for critical scrutiny by other expert historians, again that speaks volumes to anyone who isn't either rabidly biased, or entirely ignorant of how historical sources are subjected to critical scrutiny.

1. How many of the articles were from the the same author?
2. How many of the authors were themselves peer reviewed historians?
3. Did the biased Christian author you cited, lend the same credence to published street preachers (for example), with no qualifications in historical analysis, and to biased apologists like WLC, as he did to expert historians?

You are embarrassing yourself with such biased ignorance, but throwing slurs at the intelligence and integrity of those who try to help you understand these most basic facts, is simply hilarious."

 

[Sheldon]

Well what do the mayority of scholars that have the credentials and world view that you personally find appropriate say about the empty tomb ?

There is a broad consensus among historians only for an historical Jesus and the crucifixion, as has been explained enough times now surely. Your 75% of scholars claim was bs, it is the subjective opinion of a Christian author, and his data has never been peer reviewed, and as has been explained, he has pointedly ignore requests by expert historians to submit his data so it can be peer reviewed. It's no one else's fault you are woefully ignorant of the methods employed by expert historians, and are doggedly biased to boot.

Wht percentage agrees with the emty tomb? ....do you have any studies?

It is a story based on second and third hand hearsay, it is as far from an historical fact as one can imagine, and you claimed it was "known to a high degree of certainty". Now when it is made clear how woefully wrong this claim was, you respond with irrelevant demands for studies? You simply haven't a clue. If you want to read some expert historians who aren't peddling apologetics then do so, it's up to you whether you want to educate yourself beyond blind adherence to archaic superstition.

 

[Sheldon]

But you font reject other historical sources that where written by non-witnesses dacades after the event do you ?......you are making an arbitrary exception with the Bible.

What sources, what on earth are you talking about, I haven't mentioned any other sources, and I quite carefully found and post criteria expert historians use to critically examine sources, and you ignored it repeatedly. Now you are making up duplicitous straw men about hypothetical sources I have not even mentioned, you're priceless.

Here's my post again, either address what it says or ignore it, but don't waste bandwidth with dishonest and irrelevant straw man red herrings. Show some integrity and you might learn something.

Sheldon said: ↑
The original texts of the gospels had existed without names. The Church Fathers assigned the names, about three centuries after the alleged events, The gospels are not eyewitness accounts; none of the gospel writers ever directly claimed to be an eyewitness. Nor was Paul, who neither knew nor even met Jesus, and his claim are hearsay."

For a start you could follow the link to my post, and look at your claims that it was responding to, for proper context, a level of integrity and courtesy you seem unable to muster.

 

[Sheldon]

Source please ?

It was your claim, you cited a Christian author, offering a subjective opinion, and claimed it showed 75% of scholars supported the claim for an empty tomb, when it cleary shows no such thing. I posted an article from a very well known expert biblical historian, (Dr Carrier) carefully explaining why it was woefully biased. It was your claim, no one has to disprove it, and yet even after compelling evidence is offered, your only response is to demand evidence to the contrary, despite the fact it has been explained relentlessly to you, that this type of argument is a known logical fallacy, called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Your claim was that the empty tomb, among other claims, was "known to a high degree of certainty" this is entirely false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lets say I did.

I will still have 6 independent sources; these sources would have an agenda,(biased) but they would still be independent in the sense that they didn’t copied from each other. (nor from a common source)

The thing is that even if these are biased towards promoting the “greatness” of alexander, and even if the authors are willing to lie in order to make Alexander “look good” in would still be very unlikely that 2 independent authors (let alone 6) to have invented the exact same lie.

That does not matter. You need to work on your use of analogy.

When you eliminate all sources that do not agree with a party line the party line becomes the source. The papers merely follow it. Whether on purpose or not. You have no way to tell. The articles may have been independent originally, but there is no way to tell. They have to be treated as having one source.

 

[Sheldon]

And your refutation comes from a blog (not peer reviewed)

He wasn't making any historical claims? He was offering his expert opinion on your authors claims, he is an expert historian, he pointed out that the work of the author you cited was never submitted for peer review thus it falls woefully short of the standard historians would accept, the article gave expansive explanation as to why, but you have ignored these again, failing to acknowledge your error, and laughably demanding that a personal opinion be peer reviewed? Do you even know what peer review is, or how and when it is applied?

from a man that makes a living out of "refuting " chistianity .....

Yes, and he pointed out the bias of the author in the claims you cited, instead of sulking because this expert happens not to share your beliefs, you might want to read his criticises, and acknowledge what they mean for your BS claim. Sadly you seem to have settled into this "nuh uh" response as your MO to all arguments.

so you are not meeting your own standards...

For what, Carrier was not making any historical claims?

if you only accept peer reviewed unbiased sources then you should only use those sources for your refutations

Are you saying Carrier's criticism were incorrect? So you are asserting the author you linked has in fact submitted his work for peer review? This is great news, you might want to email Dr Carrier and let him know. Dr Carrier by the way was offering an expert opinion exposing the flaws in the work of the author you cited, not making any historical claims himself, opinions are not peer reviewed, why would they be? If you think there are expert historians out there who accept the claims your author used, despite refusing to submit his data for peer review, even after multiple requests from expert historians like Dr Carrier, then you're again woefully mistaken.

 

[Sheldon]

One wonders , why are you quoting my comments if you are not responding to the point made in such comments?

I did respond to it, here:

There is a consensus among historians that Alexander the GREAT was an historical person, there is none for the unsubstantiated hearsay of an empty tomb, or the superstition of magical resurrections.

You just ignored it yet again...

 

[Sheldon]

Of the alternatives that I am aware of, the empty tomb is the best alternative

The empty tomb is pure hearsay, what are you claiming it is the best alternative to, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support your bare assertion?

If you think i am wrong present your own alternative and lets compare them

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, again. No one has to disprove your bare assertion, implying a claim has credence because it hasn't been disproved is irrational, by definition.

 

[Sheldon]

You are not obligated to do anything, but if you want to have a descend conversation with someone who disagrees with you the best way to go would be:

1 establish what you r actual view is on the empty tomb

2 support that view

3 explain why your view is better than mine.

1. I withhold belief in the claim, since it is nothing more than conjecture, based on second and third hand hearsay at best.
2. There are no contemporary accounts, the authorships of 4 of the gospels are fictional names, and so the provenance is unknown, the earliest written accounts are decades after the alleged events described, there are no independent sources outside of your religion and the bible to remotely corroborate the claim. The oral stories can't be verified as eye witness accounts, and it all derives from a period of ignorant and deeply superstitious people.
3.I have not made any unevidenced assumptions, or appeals to magical supernatural events, that can't be objectively demonstrated are even possible. Withholding belief in a claim, does not carry a burden of proof, thus it is epistemologically the more sound position.

 

[Sheldon]

Ok provide your non biased peer reviewed sources supporting that assertion.

You want a peer reviewed source for something that doesn't exist? Are you high? Do you want a peer reviewed source for a lack of scholarly consensus that invisible mermaids exist?

 

[Sheldon]

The point that I am making is that the act of joining multiple independent sources and make a book out if these sources doesn’t “transform” the original sources in to “dependent sources”

They were never independent, 4 of the gospels are of unknown provenance. As several posters have explained to you, it's absurd to imagine you can make claims about the source of those gospels when you have no idea what those sources were, and three of them are known to have plagiarised parts for the fourth. There are no sources outside of the bible, or outside of the obvious bias of Christianity for it's own core beliefs, that can substantiate the hearsay claims you keep making. Beyond of course a historical Jesus being crucified, though even those are by no means "known to a high degree of certainty" as you claimed.

If Paul and Mark where independent before the Council of Nicaea they were still independent after the council.

No they're not, the authorship of the gospel of "Mark" is unknown, Pauls writings are decades after the alleged events, he neither knew nor even met Jesus, and the accounts he offers are by definition hearsay. By any metric this falls massively short of short of the criteria expert historians would require for a source to be independent of the claims. Simply repeating your false assertion won't change this, so why you keep doing so is baffling? Do you think we will suddenly change our minds about how historical sources are validated?

The point is that the empty tomb is supported by 6 different sources, none of them copied from each other, nor for a common source. So we do have 6 independent sources .

Sigh, it is not supported by any sources that any credible historian would accept as independent, and the reasons have been given exhaustively. hearsay accounts, long after the alleged events, potential bias of people's beliefs, unknown provenance, not one single contemporary account, no corroborations outside if the Christian religion, written in Greek, etc etc...

 

[leroy]

That does not matter. You need to work on your use of analogy.

When you eliminate all sources that do not agree with a party line the party line becomes the source. The papers merely follow it. Whether on purpose or not. You have no way to tell. The articles may have been independent originally, but there is no way to tell. They have to be treated as having one source.

No historian would ever make such a ridiculous claim (I challenge you to quote 1) you might find historians who say that 2 different books in the bible are “dependent” but not for the reasons you exposed.

I agree that the sources have a bias, but then we have 6 independent sources with a bias (the sources are still independent)

 

[leroy]

Well done you completely ignored my post:

"I said historians, and no historical scholar would accept a source as independent if it could not be substantiated outside of biblical claims, that is axiomatic. You don't see to know the difference between a theological scholar who also holds a subjective belief, and an historical scholar whose work has been peer reviewed. Which of course amply explains your embarrassing gaff over your claim that 75% of "scholars" belief the biblical myth of an empty tomb, since the Christian author you cited has not submitted that work for peer review by other historians, indeed he has refused requests to do so, as I evidenced in an earlier post, and you ignored.

Not all scholars are always voicing historical evidence, one can be an expert on Harry Potter, this does not mean mean their opinion that wizards are real is scholarly, you seem unable to grasp this."

Though of course by now, I think we can all see why you're keen to simply move on with naught but hand waving.

You didn’t answer to my original claim, that is why I ignored your post