Malachi151

Wrong. If you are charged with murder and your opening statement is "I didn't now murder that person", then the whole burden of proof does not shift on to you, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution.

For true believers, the texts were written by a perfect and all knowing God, who knows every event that has, is, and will take place and the thoughts of every person on earth. They were written by this all powerful God to tell the truth about the world to the people so that they would know about him and understand how to worship him.

There isn't any reason, within such a belief system, to think that the Bible could possibly be inaccurate.

Birdman

That's because that's how our justice system here in America works in order to protect innocent people from the State. We operate under the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty, but this only applies to law trials. Think of a different example: my friend and I are walking to class and are talking about the Cavs game last night. He says "Man LaBron sucked last night" without backing that statement up. I say "No way, he scored 38 points last night." What's wrong with offering your evidence for the negatory - otherwise we just slide into an argument over "who started it."

I still don't understand how if I, as an atheist, went up to a Christian and said "the God you believe in doesn't exist, there is no god," the burden of proof is suddenly on him because he's making a technically positive claim (though you could argue that the positive claim is the claim that there isn't a god). That doesn't make sense to me at all.

That was my point in saying something to the effect of it's gonna be a helluva time convincing a believer that his religious holy book is inaccurate - it is, by his definition, the very most accurate a book could be. But thank you for restating that part, apparently it got lost in all the rest of my post that you didn't like.

EarlOfLade

Well, in trials you do not have to prove you did not do it. It is impossible to prove a negative.

You, who claim a god exist, must provide evidence for this hods existence. But, you are also an atheist, it's just that I believe in one less god than you do. You are an atheist when it comes to Zeus and Odin. Why don't you prove that they do not exist?

TonyN

Truly, Jack, the 14 so-called "disproofs" you bring up do not disprove the Bible being hostorically innacurate. They are just 14 points which you do not understand or misunderstand might be a better term. I can repy to all your points when I have the time. If I don't reply to them then that proves atheism is wrong.

EarlOfLade

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

The only one here who does not understand shit, is you.

Why don't you use the brain we have evolved to look at your religion with an open eye and not swallow religious tripe as if it was champagne?

Zelc

I have no doubt you've got some way of rationalizing them. Still, I'd like to see how believable they are.

That made absolutely no sense. I don't even see how this fits with the burden of proof stuff that's been flying around.

Meanwhile, I'm sure you think the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist. I hope you can prove that, just like how atheists have to prove that God doesn't exist.

Koyaanisqatsi

Pardon the intrusion, but apparently I'm the only one around here whose job it is to constantly have to point out this fact: a burden of proof never "shifts."

If you make a claim you shoulder a burden of proof. If somebody else makes a claim, they should a burden of proof. Your burden never goes away (unless you fulfill it; i.e., prove your claim) or "shifts" regardless of who else is also making a claim.

It doesn't matter if millions of people are all claiming millions of different things; every single one of them axiomatically shoulders their own burden of proof commensurate with their claim.

Nor does it matter that millions of other people cannot meet their burdens; that does not alleviate anyone from meeting their own burdens.

If someone claims that a fictional character from ancient cult mythology is, in fact, non-fictional, then they must prove their claim. Period. That never goes away; it never shifts; it is always and forever their burden until they meet it.

Likewise, if someone else claims that a non-fictional person is in fact a fictional character, then they'd also have to prove their claim. Period. That never goes away; it never shifts; it is always and forever their burden until they meet it.

One has nothing to do with the other in so far as shouldering a burden of proof. It just so happens, of course, that if someone claims a fictional character is non-fictional and they can't prove their claim, then their claim is effectively worthless; void of substance. So there would be no need for anyone else to claim anything at all in regard to the same topic.

Theists just use this semantic "sleight of hand" to avoid meeting their own burden; fallaciously equating "you can't prove it isn't" with "that proves it is."

:huh:

spamandham

How does historical accuracy of the Bible prove atheism is wrong?

I'm pretty sure I could write a historically accurate book that involves leprechauns. Would that prove leprechauns are real?

aa5874

It is not possible to prove that an entity does not exist. There is no evidence of non-existence. There is no evidence of the non-existence of uni-corns, mermaids or ghosts.

An entity is deemed to be non-existent if it cannot be located or has no effect. Gods, supernatural entities, cannot be located and have no effect. Gods are, in effect, nothing.

The description of Gods are also illogical, therefore nothing will be resolved with respect to those entities in a logical world.

Barefoot Bree

* double-checks forum * Is this EOG or BC&H? Can we clear the decks of this burden of proof stuff and wait for TonyN to decide to grace us with his interpretations of those 14 innacuracies?