Views on Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-04-2010, 09:08 PM
 
RE: Views on Jesus
(07-04-2010 08:24 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(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.

Fine, no more Wikipedia...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Says exactly the same thing about Burden of Proof:

"Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does.""
Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2010, 09:15 PM
 
RE: Views on Jesus
(07-04-2010 09:08 PM)supermanlives1973 Wrote:  
(07-04-2010 08:24 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(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.

Fine, no more Wikipedia...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Says exactly the same thing about Burden of Proof:

"Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does.""

Once again you have not dug deep at all, doesn't surprise me, keep digging.
(07-04-2010 09:08 PM)supermanlives1973 Wrote:  
(07-04-2010 08:24 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(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.

Fine, no more Wikipedia...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Says exactly the same thing about Burden of Proof:

"Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does.""

Once again you have not dug deep at all, doesn't surprise me, keep digging.
Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2010, 09:29 PM
RE: Views on Jesus
Guys, give it up. martin has already proven, multiple times, how he will never, ever admit that he is wrong on this issue. He is wrong, and we know that - we've proven it - and this conversation is going nowhere. We may as well just let it drop.

"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, 09:38 PM
RE: Views on Jesus
(07-04-2010 08:24 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  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.

Alright, let me get a better feel for exactly what you are saying. Basically, it is the claim that goes against the majority that has the burden of proof? An interesting note, the majority here is atheist, so you are going against the majority, so wouldn't you have the burden of proof either way?

What exactly are we using as a majority? If I live in Utah, am I to be a Mormon because I cannot disprove their claims, and they are the majority? I live in America, are we have a majority of Christians, so, since I cannot disprove Christianity, am I to become a Christian? Should I be Islamic in the middle east, a Hindu in India?

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2010, 10:29 PM
 
RE: Views on Jesus
(07-04-2010 09:38 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  
(07-04-2010 08:24 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  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.

Alright, let me get a better feel for exactly what you are saying. Basically, it is the claim that goes against the majority that has the burden of proof? An interesting note, the majority here is atheist, so you are going against the majority, so wouldn't you have the burden of proof either way?

What exactly are we using as a majority? If I live in Utah, am I to be a Mormon because I cannot disprove their claims, and they are the majority? I live in America, are we have a majority of Christians, so, since I cannot disprove Christianity, am I to become a Christian? Should I be Islamic in the middle east, a Hindu in India?

This is the quote "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.“

I said "that the 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." Even if you are an atheist, his opinion is far from being common, it is far from the majority, he made the claim, and as such he needs to back up what he said, he couldn't end of story. So go ahead and bury your heads in the sand that the atheist took it to the theist one more time. BTW unbeliever why don't you ask one of your teachers what they think, and at the same time give me your school and its number and we will see if they agree with me on the burden of proof.
Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2010, 10:34 PM
RE: Views on Jesus
Well, you're right Unbeliever, this is going nowhere. I'm done.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 03:15 AM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2010 03:19 AM by Germanatheist007.)
RE: Views on Jesus
ok, martin. I think you don´t understand the point...
We don´t want to proof that jesus was anything, we want you to show us that he existed.
You can compare that to a court. You are unguilty until it´s proofen (in the eyes of the judge) that you are guilty. But you can´t just say that anybody is guilty without any evidences. And you will probably recognize that it doesn´t make any sense to say that anything exists, just because you can´t proof the opposite. Under this circumstances you can pretty much worship anything...
NOW, proof to me that there was a jesus, that there is no allah, no vishnu, no flying spaghetti monster, that there are no oompa loompas and smurfs.

If i don´t get an answer immediatly i guess that they just undoubtedly exist.
I think you will recognize that it isn´t a question of the rules of discussion.
It´s a question of intelligence.

And now excuse my, i have to pray to his noodliness...

Dear flying spaghetti monster, because nobody could disproof you, i came to the conclusion that you exist. Let this unbelievers be touched by your noodly appendages.

In the name of Noodle, Sauce and the Holy Parmesan.

R’Amen
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 05:51 AM
 
RE: Views on Jesus
<attempting to bring the conversation back to its original post subject>

I read the review of two books by Bart Ehrman:

Jesus, Interrupted
Misquoting Jesus

I think I will read these two books, simply because Dr. Ehrman seems to do a good job in identifying the history of the New Testament and its errancy.

There was also a debate I had seen between William Lane Craig (martin's favourite person of all) and Dr. Ehrman. Here's the link:

Did Jesus Rise From The Dead -Bart Ehrman Vs William Lane Craig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac

It's over 2 hours, so watch it in parts or only if you have time to watch it in its entirety.

BTW, Dr. Ehrman won that debate hands down! Smile
Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 11:40 AM
 
RE: Views on Jesus
(08-04-2010 03:15 AM)Germanatheist007 Wrote:  ok, martin. I think you don´t understand the point...
We don´t want to proof that jesus was anything, we want you to show us that he existed.
You can compare that to a court. You are unguilty until it´s proofen (in the eyes of the judge) that you are guilty. But you can´t just say that anybody is guilty without any evidences. And you will probably recognize that it doesn´t make any sense to say that anything exists, just because you can´t proof the opposite. Under this circumstances you can pretty much worship anything...
NOW, proof to me that there was a jesus, that there is no allah, no vishnu, no flying spaghetti monster, that there are no oompa loompas and smurfs.

If i don´t get an answer immediatly i guess that they just undoubtedly exist.
I think you will recognize that it isn´t a question of the rules of discussion.
It´s a question of intelligence.

And now excuse my, i have to pray to his noodliness...

Dear flying spaghetti monster, because nobody could disproof you, i came to the conclusion that you exist. Let this unbelievers be touched by your noodly appendages.

In the name of Noodle, Sauce and the Holy Parmesan.

R’Amen

R’Amen Big Grin
Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 12:59 PM
RE: Views on Jesus

[Image: 1263182166631.jpg]


(P.S. that's a link up there, you should watch it, it's related to the topic)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: