FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-15-2006, 03:31 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sumner View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv
. If the Pauline author had meant Pontius Pilate, he would simply had written so. So why didn't he?
Just to check. . .

If the Pauline author had meant demonic forces, he would simply had written so. So why didn't he?

No. It lacks force from that end too.

Regards,
Rick Sumner
Remember the burden of proof is on the assertor of a historical Jesus though.
gurugeorge is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 03:35 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurugeorge View Post
Remember the burden of proof is on the assertor of a historical Jesus though.
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
Rick Sumner is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 03:44 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sumner View Post
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
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.
gurugeorge is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 03:52 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurugeorge View Post
The burden of proof is on the assertor of the existence of an entity.
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
Peter Kirby is online now   Edit/Delete Message
Old 12-15-2006, 04:04 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 1,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sumner View Post
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."
"The Tooth Fairy is fiction" is every bit as much a claim as "The Tooth fairy is real"...
Kimpatsu is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 04:23 PM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimpatsu View Post
"The Tooth Fairy is fiction" is every bit as much a claim as "The Tooth fairy is real"...
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
Peter Kirby is online now   Edit/Delete Message
Old 12-15-2006, 08:37 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin, Australia
Posts: 874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kirby View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimpatsu
"The Tooth Fairy is fiction" is every bit as much a claim as "The Tooth fairy is real"...
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?
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
neilgodfrey is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 09:07 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 1,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kirby View Post
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
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.
Kimpatsu is offline  
Old 12-15-2006, 11:59 PM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimpatsu View Post
I think you've missed my point, Peter,
No, the substitution method is an old and not-so-profound piece of rhetoric. I understand well how it is used.

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

Quote:
so the onus is on the claim that they do exist to offer evidence.
There is no onus. I'm an onus atheist.

--
Peter Kirby
Peter Kirby is online now   Edit/Delete Message
Old 12-16-2006, 01:04 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 1,126
Default

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.
Kimpatsu is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:44 PM.

Top

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