gurugeorge

Remember the burden of proof is on the assertor of a historical Jesus though.

Rick Sumner

What nonsense. Mythicists in general can be thankful that this tact is not employed.

The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. That "Jesus was a myth" is every bit as much a claim as "Jesus was historical."

Regards,
Rick Sumner

gurugeorge

The burden of proof is on the assertor of the existence of an entity. If you think there was someone called "Jesus Christ" who was a sort of a miraculous God-man figure who created a bit of a stir in Palestine, prove it, with contemporary evidence if possible. Your "tu quoque" in response to Jakesonelv is simply misplaced - there is no symmetry.

Peter Kirby

Prove, then, the existence of an entity titled `the burden of proof'. OR just refer to our go-round on this from a short time ago. The gist is that either there is no such thing as a burden of proof, or that it is a socially constructed obligation that is upon anyone who strives to get another person to change their mind, and is not associated with any particular type of claim exclusively. Most of all, nobody has ever been persuaded of anything based on waffling about placing the burden of proof here or there, so trying to motivate someone to change their mind by putting a burden of proof on their shoulders is folly. Instead, put something to the tune of evidence on their mind, or leave them alone in their opinions.

Do not push back with another request for proof. It is unbecoming, because all Rick and I have posted about have been your claims about this thing called a `burden of proof'.

--
Peter Kirby

Kimpatsu

"The Tooth Fairy is fiction" is every bit as much a claim as "The Tooth fairy is real"...

Peter Kirby

Yes, it is. When will some people learn that the "Santa/Tooth Fairy/Easter Bunny substitution method" is not the beginning and end of inquiry?

--
Peter Kirby

neilgodfrey

Yes it is but no it isn't. The debate arises from some of us taking this sort of statement as a question of logic and others taking it as a statement of knowledge. (Knowledge has a social dimension to its meaning that is not always shared with logical rules -- it has to in order for us to function as a cohesive society -- people can't really live not "knowing" whether the sun is going to rise tomorrow.)

Neil Godfrey

htttp://vridar.wordpress.com

Kimpatsu

I think you've missed my point, Peter, which is that the claims "god/tooth fairy/Easter Bunny exists" and "god/tooth fairy/Easter Bunny does not exist" are not equiprobable; the likelihood is that they don't exist, so the onus is on the claim that they do exist to offer evidence.

Peter Kirby

No, the substitution method is an old and not-so-profound piece of rhetoric. I understand well how it is used.

Then argue it, instead of using the silly substitution method.

There is no onus. I'm an onus atheist.

--
Peter Kirby

Kimpatsu

There is definitely an onus. That's why the positive claim (You murdered your wife) must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, unlike the negative claim (You didn't murder your wife), which only needs to show that the outcome is ot equiprobable.
If you disagree, you should hand yourself in to the DA now.