Views on Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-04-2010, 07:19 PM
 
RE: Views on Jesus
(07-04-2010 07:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(07-04-2010 06:58 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(07-04-2010 06:54 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  martin, you still don't get it. I even posted about this earlier.

I did not concretely state that Jesus was an amalgamation of prophets. I can't prove that, any more than anyone else here can prove that he was a deluded man who really existed or a man who became a figurehead posthumously. I stated that I think it is most likely.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere! Why would you make a claim of something you cannot prove, or have evidence of?

Because I did not claim it as fact. I claimed it as opinion. In my opinion, it is most likely that he was a fictional character based on real-life "prophets". This opinion is caused by my evaluation of the following evidence:

- "prophets" existed
- there was no historical Jesus
- writers often base their characters on real-life people

I can't prove that this is what he was, any more than anyone else can prove that he was a deluded maniac or a simple rabbi who was later made into a figurehead. But I do think that this is the most likely answer.
So what is it that you want?

Ok, we know prophets existed, then you said "there was no historical Jesus" and that was caused by "my evaluation of the following evidence" but you didn't write about any evidence. So please show your evidence that "there was no historical Jesus"
Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2010, 07:21 PM
RE: Views on Jesus
(07-04-2010 07:19 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Ok, we know prophets existed, then you said "there was no historical Jesus" and that was caused by "my evaluation of the following evidence" but you didn't write about any evidence. So please show your evidence that "there was no historical Jesus"

Show your evidence that there was.

We've been over this so many times that I've lost count. You do not understand the burden of proof. Until you prove that there was a historical Jesus, we operate under the conclusion that there wasn't, in exactly the same way that we operate under the conclusion that there are no leprechauns.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2010, 07:40 PM
 
RE: Views on Jesus
(07-04-2010 07:21 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(07-04-2010 07:19 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Ok, we know prophets existed, then you said "there was no historical Jesus" and that was caused by "my evaluation of the following evidence" but you didn't write about any evidence. So please show your evidence that "there was no historical Jesus"

Show your evidence that there was.

We've been over this so many times that I've lost count. You do not understand the burden of proof. Until you prove that there was a historical Jesus, we operate under the conclusion that there wasn't, in exactly the same way that we operate under the conclusion that there are no leprechauns.

No YOU don't understand the burden of proof, and just because YOU say you do, that does not prove anything. Unless of course you can show me the logic and debate classes you have taken and at what institution, then I will take you at word that I don't understand the burden of proof. It is really simple you said "there was no historical Jesus" I am asking you for proof. I did not make the claim that there was an historical Jesus, you made the claim there wasn't, so prove it, should not be that hard for someone like you.
Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2010, 07:49 PM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2010 07:52 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Views on Jesus
(07-04-2010 07:40 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  No YOU don't understand the burden of proof, and just because YOU say you do, that does not prove anything. Unless of course you can show me the logic and debate classes you have taken and at what institution, then I will take you at word that I don't understand the burden of proof. It is really simple you said "there was no historical Jesus" I am asking you for proof. I did not make the claim that there was an historical Jesus, you made the claim there wasn't, so prove it, should not be that hard for someone like you.

Okay, I'm done here. This is the same thing that I have debunked over and over and over in multiple threads. I'm not interested in continuing this, as you have proven time and again that nothing I can say will convince you. You are simply incorrect and unwilling to admit it.
For those who need further proof, here is an explanation of the burden of proof - and the fallacy associated with it that martin is committing. And his constant demands that I produce records of the classes I have taken are nothing other than the argument ad hominem fallacy.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2010, 07:50 PM
RE: Views on Jesus
Martin. Is there a such thing as a flying purple pig? No, don't try to evade things by saying something silly like, "there could be", or "I don't know". Instead of playing games, just answer the question. You are not an idiot. The answer is "no", there is no such thing as a purple flying pig. You can't prove it, but you still know there isn't one because there is no evidence showing there is.
All us "unedumicated folks" that have never taken any debate classes still understand burden of proof. It lies upon the person who says there IS something, not the person who says there ISN'T. Unbeliever is simply saying a historical Jesus DID NOT exist. No proof nescessary. An individual who chooses to disagree would carry the burden of proof to show that a historical Jesus DID exist.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2010, 08:24 PM
 
RE: Views on Jesus
(07-04-2010 07:50 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Martin. Is there a such thing as a flying purple pig? No, don't try to evade things by saying something silly like, "there could be", or "I don't know". Instead of playing games, just answer the question. You are not an idiot. The answer is "no", there is no such thing as a purple flying pig. You can't prove it, but you still know there isn't one because there is no evidence showing there is.
All us "unedumicated folks" that have never taken any debate classes still understand burden of proof. It lies upon the person who says there IS something, not the person who says there ISN'T. Unbeliever is simply saying a historical Jesus DID NOT exist. No proof nescessary. An individual who chooses to disagree would carry the burden of proof to show that a historical Jesus DID exist.

That shows your base knowledge of the subject of burden of proof, sorry. Again with the Wikipedia. To be so boring to most but this will be a valuable lesson to Unbeliever.

The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy says "Philosophical method [Latin onus probandi] Originating in classical Roman law, an adversary proceeding where one party tries to establish and another to rebut some charge before a neutral adjudicative tribunal. The term has come to refer to a rule concerning the division of the labor of argumentation. Suppose A and B represent two competing views. If A has a favorable position, B will be required to produce strong arguments to defend its less favorable position. This is to say, A sets the burden of proof on B. If B cannot shift this burden, its position is defeated, even though it might be right. On the other hand, if B puts forward arguments that show that its position is stronger than A's, then it transfers the burden of proof to A. It is a basic rule of dealing with evidence. Normally any position that argues for or against something has the burden. For instance, because common sense usually has an intuitive appeal prior to argument, any philosophical position standing against common sense bears the burden of proof.“ That last line is key, common sense, emphasis on "common" is that Jesus was not "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time." so the burden of proof is on him to prove it.

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
(07-04-2010 07:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(07-04-2010 07:40 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  No YOU don't understand the burden of proof, and just because YOU say you do, that does not prove anything. Unless of course you can show me the logic and debate classes you have taken and at what institution, then I will take you at word that I don't understand the burden of proof. It is really simple you said "there was no historical Jesus" I am asking you for proof. I did not make the claim that there was an historical Jesus, you made the claim there wasn't, so prove it, should not be that hard for someone like you.

Okay, I'm done here. This is the same thing that I have debunked over and over and over in multiple threads. I'm not interested in continuing this, as you have proven time and again that nothing I can say will convince you. You are simply incorrect and unwilling to admit it.
For those who need further proof, here is an explanation of the burden of proof - and the fallacy associated with it that martin is committing. And his constant demands that I produce records of the classes I have taken are nothing other than the argument ad hominem fallacy.

That shows your base knowledge of the subject of burden of proof, sorry. Again with the Wikipedia. To be so boring to most but this will be a valuable lesson to Unbeliever.

The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy says "Philosophical method [Latin onus probandi] Originating in classical Roman law, an adversary proceeding where one party tries to establish and another to rebut some charge before a neutral adjudicative tribunal. The term has come to refer to a rule concerning the division of the labor of argumentation. Suppose A and B represent two competing views. If A has a favorable position, B will be required to produce strong arguments to defend its less favorable position. This is to say, A sets the burden of proof on B. If B cannot shift this burden, its position is defeated, even though it might be right. On the other hand, if B puts forward arguments that show that its position is stronger than A's, then it transfers the burden of proof to A. It is a basic rule of dealing with evidence. Normally any position that argues for or against something has the burden. For instance, because common sense usually has an intuitive appeal prior to argument, any philosophical position standing against common sense bears the burden of proof.“ That last line is key, common sense, emphasis on "common" is that Jesus was not "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time." so the burden of proof is on him to prove it.

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
(07-04-2010 07:50 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Martin. Is there a such thing as a flying purple pig? No, don't try to evade things by saying something silly like, "there could be", or "I don't know". Instead of playing games, just answer the question. You are not an idiot. The answer is "no", there is no such thing as a purple flying pig. You can't prove it, but you still know there isn't one because there is no evidence showing there is.
All us "unedumicated folks" that have never taken any debate classes still understand burden of proof. It lies upon the person who says there IS something, not the person who says there ISN'T. Unbeliever is simply saying a historical Jesus DID NOT exist. No proof nescessary. An individual who chooses to disagree would carry the burden of proof to show that a historical Jesus DID exist.

With all due respect, you need to dig deeper into the burden of proof.
Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2010, 08:39 PM
RE: Views on Jesus
(07-04-2010 08:24 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy says "Philosophical method [Latin onus probandi] Originating in classical Roman law, an adversary proceeding where one party tries to establish and another to rebut some charge before a neutral adjudicative tribunal. The term has come to refer to a rule concerning the division of the labor of argumentation. Suppose A and B represent two competing views. If A has a favorable position, B will be required to produce strong arguments to defend its less favorable position. This is to say, A sets the burden of proof on B. If B cannot shift this burden, its position is defeated, even though it might be right. On the other hand, if B puts forward arguments that show that its position is stronger than A's, then it transfers the burden of proof to A. It is a basic rule of dealing with evidence. Normally any position that argues for or against something has the burden. For instance, because common sense usually has an intuitive appeal prior to argument, any philosophical position standing against common sense bears the burden of proof.“ That last line is key, common sense, emphasis on "common" is that Jesus was not "He was probably an amalgamation of several "prophets" of the time." so the burden of proof is on him to prove it.

martin, sorry, but "common sense" is that people do not rise from the dead, then ascend into another plane of existence after casting a magic spell on their cult followers.
"Common sense" states that the claim that someone existed is not to be taken at face value, be they supernatural or otherwise. For example, I just invented a fictional person named Bob. He lives in New Jersey with his wife Jolene and their twelve children. Prove that he does not exist.

Quote:The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

Aaaaand you don't see how this applies to you?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2010, 08:52 PM
 
RE: Views on Jesus
(07-04-2010 06:23 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(07-04-2010 05:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(07-04-2010 05:55 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Super, you are free to make any comment you want on this site, the question is should you? I get you're an atheist and you don't spend a lot of time reading the Bible, and if that is true then you have no business commenting on the Bible. I think you said you were an English teacher, I know almost NOTHING about English, as you can tell from my writing, I know nothing about punctuation, I played mad libs with my kids not to long ago, and I didn't know what an adverb, adjective, transitive verb etc. was. What if I went on an English Teacher Blog and said "English is about the dumbest language on the planet, they can't even decide if "I" should come before "E" or not, or if 'Y" is a vowel, plural of moose is moose" If I made those comments on that site, what would you think? Same thing with your comment "but that his followers started making stories up as the generations folded over and over until we get what we have today in the New Testament". Or "In fact, using John Lennon as an example, imagine if his (John's) fans 'built up' his legend from now until 2000 years from now. How would history remember him? Would he be walking on water? Would he be healing the sick? Make the blind see again?" Those comments show how little you know about the subject, just like my comments about English show how little I know.

And you don't see the irony of posting on an atheist site?

As Super says "what is there to know about atheism?"

When did I say "what is there to know about atheism?" And, 'no', I am not an English teacher.

See, martin, if you can't get these simple, current-moment facts straight (these are facts that have been presented within the last few weeks, if that), what authority do you or anyone else have to say that Jesus was a 'real' person?

I have read the bible, sir. It is bullshit, through and through.
Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2010, 08:58 PM
RE: Views on Jesus
(07-04-2010 08:24 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  With all due respect, you need to dig deeper into the burden of proof.

If you cannot see that what I explained is a VERY simplified explaination then discussion with you truly is futile. Stop trying to be all complex, and start using some of that "common sense" you talk about.

The whole point is that a statement was made about something that cannot be proven. Just because there is no proof something does not exist doesn't mean it does. My nine year old understands this. Maybe I should have her explain it to you?

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2010, 09:02 PM
 
RE: Views on Jesus
(07-04-2010 08:52 PM)supermanlives1973 Wrote:  
(07-04-2010 06:23 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(07-04-2010 05:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(07-04-2010 05:55 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Super, you are free to make any comment you want on this site, the question is should you? I get you're an atheist and you don't spend a lot of time reading the Bible, and if that is true then you have no business commenting on the Bible. I think you said you were an English teacher, I know almost NOTHING about English, as you can tell from my writing, I know nothing about punctuation, I played mad libs with my kids not to long ago, and I didn't know what an adverb, adjective, transitive verb etc. was. What if I went on an English Teacher Blog and said "English is about the dumbest language on the planet, they can't even decide if "I" should come before "E" or not, or if 'Y" is a vowel, plural of moose is moose" If I made those comments on that site, what would you think? Same thing with your comment "but that his followers started making stories up as the generations folded over and over until we get what we have today in the New Testament". Or "In fact, using John Lennon as an example, imagine if his (John's) fans 'built up' his legend from now until 2000 years from now. How would history remember him? Would he be walking on water? Would he be healing the sick? Make the blind see again?" Those comments show how little you know about the subject, just like my comments about English show how little I know.

And you don't see the irony of posting on an atheist site?

As Super says "what is there to know about atheism?"

When did I say "what is there to know about atheism?" And, 'no', I am not an English teacher.

See, martin, if you can't get these simple, current moment facts straight, what authority do you or anyone else have to say that Jesus was a 'real' person?

I have read the bible, sir. It is bullshit, through and through.

Sorry about the English teacher thing. But here is your quote to me when I asked you what you believe "I'm assuming that you are reciprocating the question "what do YOU personally believe?" You and I are on an Atheist site, arguing theology. What DO you think I personally believe (or, not believe in my case).
(07-04-2010 08:58 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(07-04-2010 08:24 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  With all due respect, you need to dig deeper into the burden of proof.

If you cannot see that what I explained is a VERY simplified explaination then discussion with you truly is futile. Stop trying to be all complex, and start using some of that "common sense" you talk about.

The whole point is that a statement was made about something that cannot be proven. Just because there is no proof something does not exist doesn't mean it does. My nine year old understands this. Maybe I should have her explain it to you?

Look at all the attacks against me! very interesting when light comes into the dark. I asked a simple question of Unbeliever of the proof that he had, he had none. Sorry not much thought on his part.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: