FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-12-2001, 01:24 PM   #191
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by madmax2976:
First a standard must be chosen that is agreed to on both sides. This can be beyond a reasonable doubt, perponderance of the evidence ,or whatever. Until a standard is agree to, discussion will be pointless. Theist and atheist might as well walk their separate ways and leave it at that.

Then the burden of proof must be placed on some party. Typically the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. If this is not agreed to,(which would be highly unusual) then some other arangement must be made or, as before, theist and atheist might as well walk their separate ways. It is not probable that discussion could ever be meaningful or even progress graciously.

For me, the default position for a claim is often, "I don't know". If a theist purports to tell me they do know what happened 2000 years ago in ancient Palestine, and that what happened has the potential to be the biggest impact on my life over any other thing in the universe, then I expect nothing less than unambiguous evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. If that standard is too difficult for theists, then I can only say, "too bad". Have a nice day.

It is my opinion that for claims of such a fantastic nature, "reasonable doubt" is actually too low a standard and is overly generous to the theist. Fantastic claims that we have no good reason to expect can actually occur should naturally require a tremendous amount of evidence. I would require such for claims of ghosts, werewolves or psychic abilities, I see no reason to require less for angels, miracles or risen god-men.
</font>
Why is the issue of whether Jesus was buried or left on the cross a fantastic claim?
 
Old 04-12-2001, 01:35 PM   #192
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

For authentication of those claims.
When that authentication is not established, then the claim is 'fantastic'.
 
Old 04-12-2001, 01:51 PM   #193
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ion:
For authentication of those claims.
When that authentication is not established, then the claim is 'fantastic'.
</font>
This is circular reasoning and was not Madmax's point. He seems to be indicating that some claims are inherently fantastic, whatever the evidence for them, and that such claims require fantastic evidence to believe.

I am asking him what is inherently fantastic about the claim that Jesus was buried.
 
Old 04-12-2001, 01:59 PM   #194
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
Why is the issue of whether Jesus was buried or left on the cross a fantastic claim?</font>
I didn't say it was.
 
Old 04-12-2001, 02:02 PM   #195
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

An unsubstantiated claim (like "...Jesus was buried."), is a fantastic claim.
 
Old 04-12-2001, 02:04 PM   #196
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ion:
An unsubstantiated claim (like "...Jesus was buried."), is a fantastic claim. </font>
Begging the question, assuming facts not in evidence, circular reasoning.
 
Old 04-12-2001, 02:06 PM   #197
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by madmax2976:
I didn't say it was. </font>
That was the context of Earl's discussion. It has been the question disputed in this thread and the claim for which Earl demanded evidence beyond a "reasonable doubt."
 
Old 04-12-2001, 02:10 PM   #198
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Okay, madmax doesn't say the claim of Jesus being buried is a fantastic claim, but I say:
the claim of Jesus being buried is a fantastic claim, because is a non-authenticated claim by history standards with respect to consistent clarity between 'witnesses' on how long Jesus was on the cross, place of burial, how the burial place looked like for many days, who was at the burial place, etc..
 
Old 04-12-2001, 02:16 PM   #199
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ion:
Okay, madmax doesn't say the claim of Jesus being buried is a fantastic claim, but I say:
the claim of Jesus being buried is a fantastic claim, because is a non-authenticated claim by history standards with respect to consistent clarity between 'witnesses' on how long Jesus was on the cross, place of burial, how the burial place looked like for many days, who was at the burial place, etc..
</font>
Cart before the horse. We were discussing the appropriate "burden of proof" for historical claims. You cannot use your briefly stated (and distinctly minority opinion according to historians) conclusion to frame the burden of proof.
 
Old 04-12-2001, 02:19 PM   #200
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

The burden of proof is on the claimant.
No exceptions in history.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:40 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.