Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steve Weiss · 03-22-2011, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

What constitutes proof of: walking on water, virgin birth, resurrection, a worldwide flood and a boat full of world-wide species, talking animals, etc.? Can you differentiate between the possible and the impossible? Is it more rational to believe in these impossibilities or to conclude that they never happened?

And what evidence could falsify the historical Jesus hypothesis?

If we found early Christians denying that Jesus had appeared in the flesh, would that count as evidence against an historical Jesus?

One must prove the positive otherwise it is arbitrary assertion. I make no claim for the existence of a man/god. Theists do that. When they produce no evidence to support the claim, the claim is merely ignored. If you were to say that you met Napoleon yesterday and had lunch with him, I need waste no time discussing such a claim. An eternal man/god is even more ridiculous a claim than having a luncheon with Emperor Bonaparte.

mountainman · 03-22-2011, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

And what evidence could falsify the historical Jesus hypothesis?

If we found early Christians denying that Jesus had appeared in the flesh, would that count as evidence against an historical Jesus?

One must prove the positive otherwise it is arbitrary assertion.
.

What about early christians like John, who reported that there were many deceivers (who were presumeably living people) around, who were denying that Jesus had appeared in the flesh? Do these deceivers count?

Quote:

1Jo 2:18
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1Jo 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1Jo 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2Jo 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Steve Weiss · 03-22-2011, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

One must prove the positive otherwise it is arbitrary assertion.
.

What about early christians like John, who reported that there were many deceivers (who were presumeably living people) around, who were denying that Jesus had appeared in the flesh? Do these deceivers count?

Quote:

1Jo 2:18
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1Jo 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1Jo 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2Jo 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

I know lots of John's. Which one is this one? Evidence? Are you speaking of John Doe? We can ignore the Jesus deniers because there has been nothing of substance presented that requires denial. One doesn't have to deny the non-existent.

An overwhelming case, beyond all doubt, has to be offered in order to validate wild claims, and when there is nothing to the case, the case fails and disappears.

Steven Carr · 03-22-2011, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

And what evidence could falsify the historical Jesus hypothesis?

If we found early Christians denying that Jesus had appeared in the flesh, would that count as evidence against an historical Jesus?

What about early christians like John, who reported that there were many deceivers (who were presumably living people) around, who were denying that Jesus had appeared in the flesh? Do these deceivers count?

Clearly,they can't falsify the historical Jesus theory, as the theory cannot be falsified by mere evidence.

Steve Weiss · 03-22-2011, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What about early christians like John, who reported that there were many deceivers (who were presumably living people) around, who were denying that Jesus had appeared in the flesh? Do these deceivers count?

Clearly,they can't falsify the historical Jesus theory, as the theory cannot be falsified by mere evidence.

A case that is not made is falsified. That's called a failed case.

Roger Pearse · 03-23-2011, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

One must prove the positive otherwise it is arbitrary assertion. I make no ...<snip stuff>

I don't know that atheism gains much by going round demanding "prove things I find inconvenint to me or else I am justified in ignoring them". Intelligent people will smile politely and ignore it. After all, any fool could make that demand on any subject, however low their IQ, for it requires neither imagination, learning, nor intellect; only impudence. I wouldn't care to defend any position I believed in, or attack any position I did not, using THAT argument. No-one is under any obligation to prove things to me. Nor to you either, I suspect.

When we examine anything rationally, we look at all sides of the argument, and we examine things we would find convenient with especial care. Things that are too good to be true, you know?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steve Weiss · 03-23-2011, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

One must prove the positive otherwise it is arbitrary assertion. I make no ...<snip stuff>

I don't know that atheism gains much by going round demanding "prove things I find inconvenint to me or else I am justified in ignoring them". Intelligent people will smile politely and ignore it. After all, any fool could make that demand on any subject, however low their IQ, for it requires neither imagination, learning, nor intellect; only impudence. I wouldn't care to defend any position I believed in, or attack any position I did not, using THAT argument. No-one is under any obligation to prove things to me. Nor to you either, I suspect.

When we examine anything rationally, we look at all sides of the argument, and we examine things we would find convenient with especial care. Things that are too good to be true, you know?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

How can atheism gain anything since atheism stands for nothing? Atheism is nothing profound and expresses no philosophy. Atheism is the mere recognition of the absence of the existence of a deity and the lack of a definition of same. Atheism makes no case and is not required to do so by any rule of logic. Atheism asks the question: "what are you talking about?" When the theist can produce nothing, the atheist shrugs and walks away as there is nothing left to discuss.

angelo · 03-24-2011, 05:08 AM

The burden of proof is with the claimant. Atheist aren't the ones making any claims of falsification one way or the other.

Roger Pearse · 03-24-2011, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

The burden of proof is with the claimant. Atheist aren't the ones making any claims of falsification one way or the other.

"Prove things to me! Prove things to me!"

It's not a rational position. On anything. For the reasons I gave earlier.

But don't let me stop you, you know... :devil1:

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Johnny Skeptic · 03-24-2011, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

When we examine anything rationally, we look at all sides of the argument, and we examine things we would find convenient with especial care. Things that are too good to be true, you know?

Would you like to discuss that at the Abrahamic Religions forum?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-24-2011, 05:08 AM	#38
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	The burden of proof is with the claimant. Atheist aren't the ones making any claims of falsification one way or the other.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.