[split] Debating Lion IRC
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2013, 08:47 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(14-02-2013 07:32 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Here's another way of looking at it.

Suppose someone claims that a certain thing went missing or disappeared or died. And suppose the theory was that the cause was theft or murder.

In order to disprove the claim that something disappeared the skeptic requires proof that it it DID NOT.

And you could prove a negative (ie. that the thing did NOT disappear) simply by finding the missing thing.

I think you are confused about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and are mistakenly assuming that means the defense counsel dont actively seek to DISPROVE the case against their client.

Positive claim - person died. Negative claim - no they didnt.
Proof of a negative : See everybody, here they are still alive.

Positive claim - There is a cat in that box. Negative claim - no there isnt.
Proof of a negative : See everybody, the tomb box is empty.

A sparkly pink unicorn saved your soul. You can't prove it didn't.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
14-02-2013, 09:00 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2013 09:30 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(14-02-2013 08:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(14-02-2013 07:32 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Here's another way of looking at it.

Suppose someone claims that a certain thing went missing or disappeared or died. And suppose the theory was that the cause was theft or murder.

In order to disprove the claim that something disappeared the skeptic requires proof that it it DID NOT.

And you could prove a negative (ie. that the thing did NOT disappear) simply by finding the missing thing.

I think you are confused about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and are mistakenly assuming that means the defense counsel dont actively seek to DISPROVE the case against their client.

Positive claim - person died. Negative claim - no they didnt.
Proof of a negative : See everybody, here they are still alive.

Positive claim - There is a cat in that box. Negative claim - no there isnt.
Proof of a negative : See everybody, the tomb box is empty.

A sparkly pink unicorn saved your soul. You can't prove it didn't.

The cookie monster from Sesame Street had an on -off relationship with the sparkly pink unicorn, and Stephen Fry is their unwanted love child ( although he doesn't know it. ) Prove this didn't happen. I want EVIDENCE.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2013, 09:09 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2013 09:29 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(14-02-2013 07:32 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Here's another way of looking at it.

Suppose someone claims that a certain thing went missing or disappeared or died. And suppose the theory was that the cause was theft or murder.

In order to disprove the claim that something disappeared the skeptic requires proof that it it DID NOT.

And you could prove a negative (ie. that the thing did NOT disappear) simply by finding the missing thing.

I think you are confused about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and are mistakenly assuming that means the defense counsel dont actively seek to DISPROVE the case against their client.

Positive claim - person died. Negative claim - no they didnt.
Proof of a negative : See everybody, here they are still alive.

Positive claim - There is a cat in that box. Negative claim - no there isnt.
Proof of a negative : See everybody, the tomb box is empty.

And your point with the "empty tomb" is what ? That the tomb was empty ? An empty tomb, (which no one disputes), in NO WAY proves Jebus rose from the dead, nor is it even evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. All it is evidence for, is that a body is missing. Since they TALKED ABOUT it, (one gospel says they posted a guard FOR THAT VERY REASON), the Roman soldiers or Jewish leaders could easily have stolen the body, and dumped it in a common grave.
You STILL have not told us why your claim is to be taken as more credible than Simon of Perea's claim. There is just as good "evidence" for it, perhaps better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Peraea
And in fact the evidence that the witches of Sqalm Mass actually being witches is FAR FAR FAR better tha you have for Jebus rising from the dead. So why do you chose to believe that Jebus rose, and the witches were not witches ? Much more educated town fathers attested to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDIEV9w65fc
I can prove it. There is BETTER EVIDENCE THAT THE SALEM WITCHES WERE WITCHES THAN JEBUS RISING FROM THE DEAD. So Pussy, you MUST BELIEVE THEY WERE. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xv_Iklb1V4 .

And I'm not going to discuss "proving a negative". Anyone who has taken Logoc 101 knows this is impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2013, 09:13 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
The cookie monster is still a virgin, and it was a virgin birth, and the second virginal baby was the spaghetti monster.

And don't even think of disputing this holiest of all truths, because you can't prove it's not true. So there. Harrumph.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
14-02-2013, 09:29 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(14-02-2013 09:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The cookie monster is still a virgin, and it was a virgin birth, and the second virginal baby was the spaghetti monster.

And don't even think of disputing this holiest of all truths, because you can't prove it's not true. So there. Harrumph.


OMG!

Thanks for telling me! That would explain some of the cookie monster's behaviour! No wonder he's always so pissed off.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2013, 09:43 PM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
Re the empty tomb...

The historian Josephus reports that the general Titus had 3 of his (Josephus' )mates crucified. Josephus discovered them, and begged Titus to take them down from their crosses. One survived and the other 2 died. Ring any bells?

Josephus' real name was Josephus ben Matthias.

This is almost an anagram of Joseph of Arimathea.

There was no such place as "Arimathea" in Judea or anywhere else.

I smell a rat. ( The author Joseph Atwill worked this out). Interesting!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2013, 11:07 PM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2013 01:48 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(14-02-2013 07:32 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Here's another way of looking at it.

Suppose someone claims that a certain thing went missing or disappeared or died. And suppose the theory was that the cause was theft or murder.

In order to disprove the claim that something disappeared the skeptic requires proof that it it DID NOT.

And you could prove a negative (ie. that the thing did NOT disappear) simply by finding the missing thing.

I think you are confused about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and are mistakenly assuming that means the defense counsel dont actively seek to DISPROVE the case against their client.

Positive claim - person died. Negative claim - no they didnt.
Proof of a negative : See everybody, here they are still alive.

Positive claim - There is a cat in that box. Negative claim - no there isnt.
Proof of a negative : See everybody, the tomb box is empty.


This is goddamn amazing! You mean I can say whatever crazy shit I want, and if nobody else can disprove it (prove a negative), then it's true by default? Sign me the fuck up!


I can fly! Since you are unable to prove that I don't have the power of flight, that means I can fly! That's awesome, because I've always wanted to be able to fly. I better call up the Guinness Book of World Records, surely they should know of my amazing new power. And when they ask for proof of my feat, I'll tell them that they can't prove me wrong, and BAM! I'm in the history books as the first human capable of unpowered or unassisted flight! Amazing, I've just made history! Thanks Pussycat IRC!


FUCKING AMAZING! Pushing my burden of proof onto others is so much more fun than actually having to substantiate my own claims! Why doesn't everybody else do this?

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
15-02-2013, 12:15 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(14-02-2013 11:07 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(14-02-2013 07:32 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Here's another way of looking at it.

Suppose someone claims that a certain thing went missing or disappeared or died. And suppose the theory was that the cause was theft or murder.

In order to disprove the claim that something disappeared the skeptic requires proof that it it DID NOT.

And you could prove a negative (ie. that the thing did NOT disappear) simply by finding the missing thing.

I think you are confused about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and are mistakenly assuming that means the defense counsel dont actively seek to DISPROVE the case against their client.

Positive claim - person died. Negative claim - no they didnt.
Proof of a negative : See everybody, here they are still alive.

Positive claim - There is a cat in that box. Negative claim - no there isnt.
Proof of a negative : See everybody, the tomb box is empty.



This is goddamn amazing! You mean I can say whatever crazy shit I want, and if nobody else can disprove it (prove a negative), then it's true by default? Sign me the fuck up!


I can fly! Since you are unable to prove that I don't have the power of flight, that means I can fly! That's awesome, because I've always wanted to be able to fly. I better call up the Guinness Book of World Records, surely they should know of my amazing new power. And when they ask for proof of my feat, I'll tell them that they can't prove me wrong, and BAM! I'm in the history books as the first human capable of unpowered or unassisted flight! Amazing, I've just made history! Thanks Pussycat IRC!


FUCKING AMAZING! Pushing my burden of proof onto others is so much more fun than actually having to substantiate my own claims! Why doesn't everybody else do this?



Gee Lion, 3 people are telling you more or less exactly the same thing. You've been told this for literally weeks now. But what would we know? We're just ATHEISTS with big chips on our shoulders, aren't we?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
15-02-2013, 06:36 AM
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
(14-02-2013 08:18 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(14-02-2013 07:32 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Here's another way of looking at it.

Suppose someone claims that a certain thing went missing or disappeared or died. And suppose the theory was that the cause was theft or murder.

In order to disprove the claim that something disappeared the skeptic requires proof that it it DID NOT.

And you could prove a negative (ie. that the thing did NOT disappear) simply by finding the missing thing.

I think you are confused about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and are mistakenly assuming that means the defense counsel dont actively seek to DISPROVE the case against their client.

Positive claim - person died. Negative claim - no they didnt.
Proof of a negative : See everybody, here they are still alive.

Positive claim - There is a cat in that box. Negative claim - no there isnt.
Proof of a negative : See everybody, the tomb box is empty.


Hey Lion, you're getting yourself in a real muddle. It's not this complex.

Extraordinary claims (such as that someone rose from the dead) require extraordinary evidence. Your evidence is not extraordinary.


1. Its not extraordinary that God can do miracles.
2. It's not me claiming to have seen Jesus alive 3 days after He died. The claim is made by witnesses who were there. And the claims were made to people who were also there and those amazing claims were not rejected - they survived and were repeated and believed and eventually written down and copied.

Quote:...The Romans crucified Jesus. It must have been a devastating, humiliating blow to his supporters. The Gospel authors couldn’t have their hero disappear after such a dreadful demise.

There would be no Gospel authors if Jesus dead body had been properly guarded by the authorities who wished to quell Messianic rumours. There would be no Gospel authors if the authorities had applied sufficient persuasive methods to get Jesus' followers to recant their claims and renounce Him as a false Messiah.

Quote:The rank and file wouldn’t idolize a loser.

They didnt.

Judas betrayed Him. Peter denied Him. The Jewish religious leadership heirarchy feared and hated Him. The mob turned against Him. Jesus' followers scattered like sheep. They didnt all go in solidarity with Him to the Cross. He was a loser. He was beaten, mocked, whipped, publically shown to be a mere mortal. No triumphant coming down from the Cross at the last minute. Jesus died a total loser and thats exactly what His powerful enemies wanted. And His body could NOT have been simply left to some chance disappearance staged according to your conspiracy theory because that is EXACTLY THE THING WHICH WOULD HAVE ALLOWED FOR A RUMOUR TO GET STARTED.

Quote:The scriptwriters had to spruce up the story. Jesus had to rise from the dead, just like a god was expected to. The Egyptian Osiris, the Greek Dionysus, the Persian Mithras, and many others had all risen from the dead. Resurrection is a timeless theme; if a character is charismatic enough, people like to imagine death has been defeated, even today. Consider Elvis Presley.

Yes. Life after death is a very persistent idea. Persistent across all civilizations throughout tens of thousands of years. Maybe even hundreds of thousands of years. It's practically instinctive. Its like theres something encoded in our DNA.
Reincarnation, ghosts, resurrection, Higher beings, extra terrestrial life forms (eg. angels,) miracles, parallel space/time dimensions (eg. heaven,) strange quantum forms of ''virtual'' particles/energy not yet fully discovered or understood which behave in counter-intuitive ways...

I dont claim that every single on of the millions/billions of reported supernatural events in human history are ALL true.

But are you prepared to make the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that they are all false?


Quote:...The resurrection of Christ proved the divinity of Jesus.

Nope. There were people who believed Jesus had divine powers before He died. (Just as there were people who already thought God exists before the bible was written.)

Quote: It’s the central tenet of the faith, the one most important belief upon which Christianity is based.

It wouldnt be a central tenet of anything if nobody ever reported seeing Jesus miracles and post-mortem appearences.
There's a reason why it is so important - because it happened.
People ask for unbiased sources. But the problem is that seeing an actual miracle MAKES YOU VERY BIASED.


Quote:...The authors of the other Gospels probably included a resurrection because by the time they were...


I dont accept claims made by atheists about what the actual real authentic, well-documented authors of the bible were really thinking.
You dont get to tell me....nobody even knows who ''they'' were, none of them were even there when it happened, so many fakes, etc etc etc...

AND THEN PRESUME TO CLAIM KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR REAL MOTIVES

You do not know that the earliest manuscripts fragments of John were the first original ever written. And some of John's sources come from living people who must have been in the Sanhedrin that convicted Jesus. Likewise, Paul's writings date to within the lifetime of the disciples. The age of the texts is well and truly such that the people telling these accounts knew what they were talking about and their testimony could been refuted by contemporary sources with evidence to the contrary had such denial evidence existed.

The Gospel manuscripts we have are closer in time and better preserved than the oldest copies of Tacitus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 07:06 AM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2013 07:30 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Debating Lion IRC
All faith based assertions with no evidence. Nothing new here. Neither does Puss know anything about the mindset of the authors of the gospels. In a magical world, they were not unique, and Puss has STILL not addressed why this set of miracles, and this dying and rising is any different from all the others. Repeating the tired old bull, makes it no more true than it was before it was debunked.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: