Need Some Help
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Not one word was written about Jesus until decades after his death. And of all the historians writing in that epoch how many have offered corroborating accounts of any of the claims in the NT, independently of the bible? These are the kinds of facts I'd expect someone interested in discussing atheism in the context of their own beliefs, and their strident assertions to have evidence for those beliefs, to want to produce. He started with the usual breathtaking raft of claims and assertions, then the usual logically fallacious arguments, and in a format that is all too familiar now, danced and evaded the responses with rather puerile attempts to revers the burden of proof.
Having pointed out he had used several common logical fallacies, his only response now is to keep making a counter claim of the same, no attempt to address his own use of them of course, it;s all depressingly familiar I must say.
I'm starting to think we're being trolled, again...To be fair to you mykcob you called this one from the start pretty much.
"So partial manuscripts don't count? It has to be an entire Bible to count as as a manuscript? Do you hold other historical books to this same criteria?"
That would depend, if they make the rediculous assertion that they're divinely inspired, or assert equally rediculous claims for supernatural magic?
Begging the question again, Sheldon.
I don't think you understand petitio principii.
Here's a clue, look at the end of my sentence you quoted for one of these?
neel be like...blah blah blah...(as i always post)..
rational argument doesn't work with religious people, otherwise there wont be any religious people.
~Gregory House M.D
"The first thing I would say is that each of the four gospels, which are historical accounts, agree on the historical fact of the resurrection. "
They're not 'historical accounts', and the resurrection is not remotely a fact, historical or otherwise. This conversation is going to be short if you simply keep asserting your beliefs as fact.
"I would love also to hear at this point what you think of the Bible from the standpoint of its reliability as an historical document."
Extremely dubious, some of it is demonstrably false like the Israelite being held as slaves in Egypt in any significant numbers,
and Genesis as two obvious examples.
"Because if you evaluate by the same standards as other ancient documents, then I think you will see that it is historically reliable,"
No it isn't, not at all. Though this doesn't address the supernatural claims of course since no credible historical documents ever make such claims.
"as eyewitnesses to the events proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus. "
1) How could you possibly know these claims involved eyewitness accounts?
2) Even if you could evidence they were eyewitnesses how could you validate what they say they saw? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
"Paul says "
I don't care what Paul says, why would I? He never even met Jesus by his own admission. Besides to make assertions for miracles on the basis of third hand accounts is absurd, you could believe anything with the bar set that low.
" I know some of this is anecdotal, but it is also noteworthy and worth your consideration."
Which parts are not anecdotal? Why is it any more noteworthy than eyewitnesses to miracles in other religions? Worth my consideration in what sense? I only believe claims for which objective evidence can demonstrated that are at least commensurate to the claim.
"There are many directions I could go on the resurrection from here, but I will simply ask you instead, what is your proof that it didn't happen. "
Argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance, it's a common logical fallacy, why do no religious apologists know this basic rule that negates the rational validity of claims and arguments? I have no burden of proof as I'm not claiming anything. The rejection of a claim is not the same as making a contrary claim.
"The historical facts are that the resurrection was claimed by the early church and no one could ever disprove it.
That's almost funny, the way you used the phrase 'historical fact' to try and pretend your claim had some gravitas, just before you admit it is nothing more than a claim by people from a wildly superstitious and ignorant epoch. Another use of argumentum ad ignorantiam, you need to look that up, and understand what it means for claims that are based on logical fallacies. You could include it in your research.
"Where did Jesus' body go?"
This common logical fallacy is called begging the question, where you assert in your argument as fact the point your argument is supposed to be validating. First show objective evidence there was a Jesus, then that he was crucified, then that his body mysteriously disappeared. Then what you'll have is set of circumstances you have no explanation for, so this should give you some idea of how far away you are from demonstrating any rational argument or objective evidence for anything to support your beliefs.
No offensive but you could have saved yourself a thread, as these arguments are so overused by apologetics they're cliches. It's sad to me that people teach this stuff to impressionable youngsters without the integrity to show them how deeply flawed they are.
Thanks for the well thought out response. It looks like we need to start from the beginning. Do you think that Jesus existed and was crucified?
"Thanks for the well thought out response. It looks like we need to start from the beginning. Do you think that Jesus existed and was crucified?"
I don't know. There simply is insufficient evidence to make an informed decision. The Romans crucified a lot of people, so who knows about the second part of the claim, but even if these could be evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt this still wouldn't evidence any of the supernatural claims of course.
Could answer a question now? Do you know what common logical fallacies like argumentum ad ignorantiam and begging the question are, and what it means for an argument when these are used?
What about the existence of Jesus?
I do know those fallacies.
"What about the existence of Jesus?"
What about it?
"I do know those fallacies."
You knew your arguments were fallacious, and therefore irrational, but posted them anyway, why?
"They're not 'historical accounts', and the resurrection is not remotely a fact, historical or otherwise. This conversation is going to be short if you simply keep asserting your beliefs as fact."
Sheldon, you do see that you're also asserting your beliefs as fact? You accuse me of begging the question. Ok. Under that standard you are also begging the question.
"No it isn't, not at all. Though this doesn't address the supernatural claims of course since no credible historical documents ever make such claims."
Again, begging the question. There is no God therefore there is no supernatural possibilities? Why? Because there is no God. Round and round we go.
"I have no burden of proof as I'm not claiming anything. The rejection of a claim is not the same as making a contrary claim." You claim that Jesus did not exist. You claim that God does not exist. These are claims, no? The burden of proof is on you as well.
Did Sheldon say that, or are you entering the strawmanning phase?
I wonder if these are the ‘debate tactics’ being taught in his apologetics class.
I may have inferred too much here. Forgive me. I’ve asked him twice now for clarification.
I quite specifically said I did not know when he asked me directly if Jesus existed. Se's resorting to mendacity depressingly quickly, and I think myckob has called this one correctly.
you're skeptic on our end that we're the one who has the burden of proof..
why can't you be skeptic on your belief neel?
i think you're like breezy weezy..
afraid of being shunned...if you don't believe what your parents are believing....lame excuse
pity.....good luck with that...
"Sheldon, you do see that you're also asserting your beliefs as fact? "
Nope, care to list three for me?
"You accuse me of begging the question. Ok. Under that standard you are also begging the question."
It wasn't an accusation it was a statement of fact, and I showed the evidence in your own post, your claim goes in the bin after applying Hitchens's razor as you have not even tried to evidence it, and I am starting to smell a rat here.
""No it isn't, not at all. Though this doesn't address the supernatural claims of course since no credible historical documents ever make such claims."
Again, begging the question. There is no God therefore there is no supernatural possibilities? Why? Because there is no God. Round and round we go."
Nope, what objective evidence have you for your claim a deity exists? The only thing I asserted was that credible historical documents don't generally make claims for supernatural magic. So now you're simply being dishonest.
"You claim that Jesus did not exist."
No I didn't, I am rejecting your claim that his existence and resurrection were "historical facts", as I said you are either being fairly dishonest or don't know the difference between making a contrary claim and simply rejecting one.
"You claim that God does not exist."
No I didn't.
"The burden of proof is on you as well."
No it isn't.
"I am not here to argue or anything of the sort. I just want to have an honest conversation about beliefs in a civil way, because I think that's what the world needs more of - honest, civil, discussion"
where do you really want to go from here?
are you really honest neel?
aren't you dodging some of the questions here?
you'll go to hell if you lie.....always remember that..
don't put words on their mouths please..
"assignments is to dialogue with an atheist about worldview and to write a paper about it"
is this really for your paper?
come on, neel.. the almighty god will really fuck you up man...i'm telling yah..
If you desire to discuss the horrors from that school shooting, then I suggest you engage that forum thread.
But you indicated you are researching the atheist world view. And I will repeat, atheists do not have a world view, the only thing we have in common is the rejection of the god claim.
But here is a tidbit to ponder. For myself, my personal experiences and beliefs drove me to become an atheist. I did not decide to become an atheist and then altered my personal beliefs or world view.
So let's not put the cart before the horse.
I don’t wish to discuss that shooting in particular, I was just using it as an example to say that I think everyone has a worldview. Obviously you have stated that you do not believe there is a God. But how do you process a school shooting (or any other atrocity) from a moral standpoint. Who decides what is right or wrong and how do we know right from wrong?
Of course everyone has a worldview. Atheism, however, isn’t one. And folks who are identified as atheist have as many world views as there are atheists. (The same, btw, is true of theists as well.)
This is an area where the government reacts to the public's outrage to determine what is right and proper and what is not. You know what is acceptable based upon societal reaction.
I think this is a very dangerous way to define morality and an ever changing standard as well. Throughout history, the "public majority" has been in favor of incredible moral atrocities. Why would we let the majority decide? What makes them right?
@Neel, as proven over and over again MORALITY, is completely subjective. It comes from society and NOT from any god. In fact, religion, just christianity alone proves that it is subjective as they can't and haven't developed a consistent and singular morality!
Are you saying humans can't assess the morality of actions, that only a deity can do this?
@Neel Skelton: "public majority" has been in favor of incredible moral atrocities.
Usually that happens when the public majority is incited by the priestly minority. Just look at all the cruelty and horror inflicted in the name of your god.
The danger isn't that morality changes, but the fact that religious morality can't be questioned.
Who said majorities were always correct? They often aren't, which is why morality, and the concept of what is right constantly changes as we all cope with our mistakes as societies.
@cyberln I can agree with that. I wasn’t trying to lump all atheists into one worldview, so I hope I didn’t communicate that. I was simply trying to say that believing there is no God (or believing there is one) is a significant part of one’s worldview.
That was a helpful distinction though, and it brings some clarity to what David was saying.
So instead of broad strokes, what do the two of you individually do with the morality question... who defines morality?
Neel, you wrote, “ I was simply trying to say that believing there is no God (or believing there is one) is a significant part of one’s worldview.”
Many people who are identified as atheist would not describe themselves as believing there is/are no god/s.
Thanks for clarifying! I must have a narrow definition of atheist. Can you help me out here?