Quote :

"Thus, the compelling evidence. Of which you have none."

But you are the one creating the definition of 'compelling evidence' so the whole thing is self suiting. Anything I say, you can call it an argument - or say that that part wasn't to be taken literally. If you want to evaluate the bible based on its facts I'll do that

> people can't live to be hundreds of years old
> the earth wasn't created as described in Genesis
> the human race couldn't be the descendants of one man and woman
> Noah's flood couldn't have happened as described
> most of the miracles couldn't have happened

If you want to evaluate the bible as a piece of history and discuss how it came about then I still say that the most likely scenario is that it was the conglomeration of all the myths of the time. The Christians adapted all the old stories.

Do you want to address any of this, or just debate the semantics of what evidence is? I can't disprove the bible any more than I can disprove God's existence, or the imaginary dragon in my room, or the flying spaghetti monster. It's not even possible to prove that a cow has never eaten a monkey but we can discuss whether it is a likely scenario.

Quote :

"Or, he can give them a little info about shit that he feels is not as important to get across and then move along to the shit he feels is important."

I guess the creation of the world isn't that important, no one cares how it started anyway.

Quote :

"That you claimed to have a book that says otherwise would be irrelevant, as actual observation shows that cows do not eat monkeys."

Ok, so lets say the bible is irrelevant. Do you have a good reason for God's existence? because actual observation doesn't offer any support for this hypothesis.

4/9/2011 12:48:01 AM

Quote :

"people can't live to be hundreds of years old"

really? Just because we don't tend to do so, doesn't mean we can't.

Quote :

"the earth wasn't created as described in Genesis"

Really? You have proof of this?

Quote :

"the human race couldn't be the descendants of one man and woman"

Even Genesis is kind of contradictory on this one.

Quote :

"most of the miracles couldn't have happened"

Of course not, not on their own. That's why they are miracles.

Quote :

"But you are the one creating the definition of 'compelling evidence' so the whole thing is self suiting."

Not really. I gave an exact definition that is easily testable.

Quote :

"If you want to evaluate the bible as a piece of history and discuss how it came about then I still say that the most likely scenario is that it was the conglomeration of all the myths of the time."

Probably true. But it's not definitive fact. Thus the reason it is an argument. In my example of cows eating monkeys, it is definitive fact that cows do not eat monkeys.

Quote :

"I guess the creation of the world isn't that important, no one cares how it started anyway."

In the grand scheme of what this alleged deity wanted to get across, no, it doesn't seem that it was. We can ascertain that by the fact that, again, creation was given 2-3 paragraphs of coverage, while there are chapters upon chapters about other things.

Quote :

"Ok, so lets say the bible is irrelevant. Do you have a good reason for God's existence? because actual observation doesn't offer any support for this hypothesis."

Well, if I am talking about a claim that the god of the Bible exists, then the Bible isn't exactly irrelevant, as it would be the basis of that claim. But, define "good reason?" I've already explicitly stated that there is no scientific evidence that such a deity exists. Nor would I expect there to be, based on my own beliefs.

4/10/2011 11:17:13 PM

Quote :

"In my example of cows eating monkeys, it is definitive fact that cows do not eat monkeys."

Really? Just because they don't tend to do so doesn't mean they can't.

4/10/2011 11:51:03 PM

ok, how bout this:
it is a definitive fact that cows do not live on a diet of monkeys. you know what I meant, genius

4/11/2011 12:03:53 AM

Quote :

"the earth wasn't created as described in Genesis""

Quote :

"Really? You have proof of this?"

....what?

4/11/2011 8:46:30 AM

Quote :

"Well, if I am talking about a claim that the god of the Bible exists, then the Bible isn't exactly irrelevant, as it would be the basis of that claim. But, define "good reason?" I've already explicitly stated that there is no scientific evidence that such a deity exists. Nor would I expect there to be, based on my own beliefs."

The lack of scientific evidence is one of my bigger issues with believing it, so I guess we just have different views on that point. I just don't understand his problem with proving his own existence if he is going to send people to hell for not believing in him.

I'll modify my question then. What made you choose the god of the Bible over any other world religion and why is it more correct?

Quote :

""the earth wasn't created as described in Genesis" Really? You have proof of this?"

I mean, there's a few problems with it. It doesn't jive with observation of the universe, unless he set it up to trick us into thinking there was a big bang and hid a bunch of dinosaur fossils for us to find. I think most people agree that at least this part of the bible is just a story.

4/11/2011 8:53:32 AM

Except Jesus talked about and confirmed many stories of the Old Testament; the destruction of Sodom and Lot's wife, etc. From a Biblical perspective there is no reason to think (outside of reason and evidence to the contrary that is) that Genesis or any of the OT is allegorical. It's simple cherry picking and yet another strike against religion. Just like "god hates fags" and "don't eat shellfish" and "women are 2nd class citizens" (that's from the NT before aaron tries to get cute) are allegorical because they're rubbish to our society and not from any Biblical reasoning.

Quote :

"I'll modify my question then. What made you choose the god of the Bible over any other world religion and why is it more correct?"

It's all about faith, which is the antithesis of scientific evidence. He has no compelling reason to be a Christian over a Muslim or a Roman Pantheist. All religious traditions have their holy books, and all of their followers honestly believe that they are true believers.

aaronburro

Quote :

"words"

The problem is that a supposedly omniscient being, who would absolutely know that hearsay, ancient texts, and personal revelation are terrible for proving his existence would rely on such methods and not clear evidence of his existence and power. Yahweh is self-contradictory.

4/11/2011 10:37:00 AM

Quote :

"I just don't understand his problem with proving his own existence if he is going to send people to hell for not believing in him. "

That's a valid question, and one that a lot of Christians struggle with.

Quote :

"From a Biblical perspective there is no reason to think (outside of reason and evidence to the contrary that is) that Genesis or any of the OT is allegorical. "

I see no reason to say that it isn't allegorical. Am I literally to believe the story of the good Samaritan happened?

Quote :

"It's simple cherry picking and yet another strike against religion."

Not really. You are trying to say that every last thing in the Bible must be 100% correct for any of to be correct, and that simply isn't true.

Quote :

"The problem is that a supposedly omniscient being, who would absolutely know that hearsay, ancient texts, and personal revelation are terrible for proving his existence would rely on such methods and not clear evidence of his existence and power."

I would posit that providing clear and undeniable scientific evidence of his existence might never have been the intent or desire of such a being.

Quote :

"women are 2nd class citizens"

only if you take one of a few competing interpretations.

4/11/2011 7:53:37 PM

any thoughts on other world religions?

4/11/2011 9:25:22 PM

I would have to bone up on them, but I would surmise that there is also an equal lack of compelling evidence which disproves any of them, as well.

4/11/2011 11:06:10 PM

Quote :

"I would posit that providing clear and undeniable scientific evidence of his existence might never have been the intent or desire of such a being."

Then why intentionally half-ass it and inspire ancient texts? Are you suggesting that Yahweh in fact had nothing to do with the Bible? Or that he's intentionally deceptive?

Quote :

"only if you take one of a few competing interpretations."

Quote :

"1 Corithians 11 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

Enlighten me on the competing interpretations of this passage.

Bonus Track:
Colossians 3

Quote :

"3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."

Quote :

"Not really. You are trying to say that every last thing in the Bible must be 100% correct for any of to be correct, and that simply isn't true."

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that there must be a clear understanding of why a particular passage is allegorical and others are not for it not be called cherry picking. The reason why Christians consider certain passages allegorical does not have Biblical support.

Quote :

"I would have to bone up on them, but I would surmise that there is also an equal lack of compelling evidence which disproves any of them, as well."

Then why are you not a Muslim as well? Why not a Greek Pantheist? Why not a Shinto? Why not believe in Odin? Why not Buddha? Why not any of the ~10,000 religions practiced by humanity in the history of our species?

Is it only because you haven't read enough about them that you don't believe them? How much more do you need to know about Odin before you believe in him? I'd suggest starting soon, because he will spear your soul on Gugnir for eternity if you don't figure it out before you die. Wouldn't you rather spend the afterlife in Vahalla?

Quote :

"Am I literally to believe the story of the good Samaritan happened?"

Are you literally to believe the story of the Resurrection happened?


[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 11:08 AM. Reason : .]

4/12/2011 10:57:25 AM

Quote :

"I would posit that providing clear and undeniable scientific evidence of his existence might never have been the intent or desire of such a being."

The most honesty we've seen yet. No doubt God is a trickster god.

[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 11:12 AM. Reason : asd]

4/12/2011 11:12:11 AM

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that Yahweh in fact had nothing to do with the Bible? Or that he's intentionally deceptive? "

Oh look, more false dilemmas. I love em! No, I would suggest that such a being didn't want clear proof either way. I'll leave it up to you to wonder why.

Quote :

"Colossians 3"

How convenient that you leave out the next verse, which also gives a duty to husbands. Good cherry-picking!

Quote :

"1 Corithians 11"

Again, how convenient that you leave out the following verses...

Quote :

"11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. "

Hmm, looks like neither is 2nd class...

Quote :

"Then why are you not a Muslim as well? Why not a Greek Pantheist? Why not a Shinto? Why not believe in Odin? Why not Buddha? Why not any of the ~10,000 religions practiced by humanity in the history of our species?"

Why would me saying "there's not compelling evidence against them" imply that I should also practice those religions? pure nonsense

[Edited on April 12, 2011 at 3:46 PM. Reason : ]

4/12/2011 3:43:08 PM

I think he's suggesting that its nonsense to believe in any of them, since, you know, there's no compelling evidence for any of them

4/12/2011 9:09:52 PM

Quote :

"Why would me saying "there's not compelling evidence against [Christianity]" imply that I should ... practice ... [Christianity]? pure nonsense"

4/13/2011 3:40:35 AM

None of those additional lines do anything to change the idea that women should be subservient to man. In the Corinthians example, all you showed that was in addition to being subservient to man, women must be subservient to God. Bravo.

Quote :

"Why would me saying "there's not compelling evidence against them" imply that I should also practice those religions? pure nonsense"

Because that's not enough reason for you NOT to believe in Christianity, in your mind. Tell us why you don't believe in Zeus and you'll figure out why you shouldn't believe in Yahweh.

Quote :

"Oh look, more false dilemmas. I love em! No, I would suggest that such a being didn't want clear proof either way. I'll leave it up to you to wonder why."

There's no false dilemma. A being wouldn't want clear proof? You're going a long way to convincing me that this being is actually benevolent. Why is the Bible there in the first place? Isn't the point to illuminate mankind and let us know he's there?

Claim: There is a God.
Claim: The Bible is divinely inspired so that Man can know God and submit to Jesus for Salvation.
Fact: The Bible is a unreliable source, no different than any other ancient text.
Conclusion: God either does not exist, is incompetent (unable to successfully work toward his own goal of letting us know he's there), or is deliberately deceitful. (I welcome other conclusions if you have them rather than complaints about false dilemmas).

4/13/2011 8:43:19 AM

Quote :

"Because that's not enough reason for you NOT to believe in Christianity, in your mind."

not at all. Nowhere have I made such an argument.

Quote :

"Fact: The Bible is a unreliable source, no different than any other ancient text."

Oh look, an unsubstantiated part of your argument! woot!

Quote :

"Conclusion: God either does not exist, is incompetent (unable to successfully work toward his own goal of letting us know he's there), or is deliberately deceitful. or doesn't submit to how YOU want Him to be"

ftfy

4/13/2011 3:16:44 PM

Quote :

"not at all. Nowhere have I made such an argument."

You say there is no compelling evidence against Christianity. Since you also admit that there is no compelling evidence against other religions, why do you choose Christianity? That is the question I think disco_stu would like you to answer.

4/13/2011 3:40:47 PM

Quote :

"Since you also admit that there is no compelling evidence against other religions, why do you choose Christianity?"

Irrelevant. Someone claimed he had compelling evidence against Christianity. I counter he does not

4/13/2011 5:19:05 PM

its irrelevant to whether or not there's evidence to support or deny Christianity, but its still interesting.

why don't you want to share why you are a Christian?

4/13/2011 6:05:46 PM

Quote :

"Oh look, an unsubstantiated part of your argument! woot!"

You need to learn something about the burden of proof. I don't need to prove that "Green Eggs and Ham" is not a divinely inspired book any more than I need to prove the Bible is not before I can say that they both are just books.

Here. I'll make this post real easy for you. Just answer one question.

Why do you not believe in Zeus?

4/14/2011 7:48:32 AM

How much $$ did the university shell out for this fiasco?

4/14/2011 5:51:02 PM

i thought it was sponsored by campus crusade

4/15/2011 12:44:03 AM

I apologize for this thread.

4/15/2011 10:14:42 AM

aaronburro owes all of us and his teachers an apology.

[Edited on April 15, 2011 at 12:51 PM. Reason : d]

4/15/2011 12:51:36 PM

Can you prove that the universe wasn't created in the following way?

Quote :

"When on high the heaven had not been named, Firm ground below had not been called by name, When primordial Apsu, their begetter, And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all, Their waters mingled as a single body, No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared, None of the gods had been brought into being, And none bore a name, and no destinies determined-- Then it was that the gods were formed in the midst of heaven. Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called. (10) Before they had grown in age and stature, Anshar and Kishar were formed, surpassing the others. Long were the days, then there came forth..... Anu was their heir, of his fathers the rival; Yes, Anshar's first-born, Anu, was his equal. Anu begot in his image Nudimmud. This Nudimmud was of his fathers the master; Of broad wisdom, understanding, mighty in strength, Mightier by far than his grandfather, Anshar. He had no rival among the gods, his brothers. (20) Thus were established and were... the great gods. They disturbed Tiamat as they surged back and forth, Yes, they troubled the mood of Tiamat By their hilarity in the Abode of Heaven. Apsu could not lessen their clamor And Tiamat was speechless at their ways. Their doings were loathsome unto . . . . Thier way was evil; they were overbearing. Then Apsu, the begetter of the great gods, Cried out, addressing Mummu, his minister: (30) "O Mummu, my vizier, who rejoices my spirit, Come here and let us go to Tiamat!" They went and sat down before Tiamat, Exchanging counsel about the gods, their first-born. Apsu, opening his mouth, Said to resplendent Tiamat: "Their ways are truly loathsome to me. By day I find no relief, nor repose by night. I will destroy, I will wreck their ways, That quiet may be restored. Let us have rest!" (40) As soon as Tiamat heard this, She was furious and called out to her husband. She cried out aggrieved, as she raged all alone, She uttered a curse, and unto Apsu she spoke: "What? Should we destroy that which we have built? Their ways indeed are most troublesome, but let us attend kindly!" Then Mummu answered, giving counsel to Apsu; Ill-wishing and ungracious was Mummu's advice: "Do destroy, my father, the mutinous ways. Then you will have relief by day and rest by night!" (50) When Apsu heard this, his face grew radiant Because of the evil he planned against the gods, his sons. As for Mummu, he embraced him by the neck As that one sat down on his knees to kiss him. Now whatever they had plotted between them, Was repeated unto the gods, their first-born. When the gods heard this, they were astir, Then lapsed into silence and remained speechless. Surpassing in wisdom, accomplished, resourceful, Ea, the all-wise, saw through their scheme. (60) "

4/15/2011 12:56:29 PM

Quote :

"You need to learn something about the burden of proof. "

No, YOU DO. you claimed it was bogus, but have yet to prove it false.

^ can you?

4/16/2011 3:19:16 PM

4/17/2011 12:21:09 AM

Quote :

"No, YOU DO. you claimed it was bogus, but have yet to prove it false."

You have to prove its validity, not the other way around. Until you can do that, it is an unreliable source.

4/17/2011 10:05:08 AM

Quote :

"No, YOU DO. you claimed it was bogus, but have yet to prove it false. ^ can you? "

*Face Palm*

When Christians, or any other religious zealots, start attempting to use logic and evidence to make a compelling case for the supernatural (which by definition defies the laws of nature), I sort of lose interest in the conversation. There's no way it will be productive.

Now however, if the claim is falsifiable and the evidence is concrete, empirical and logical I am willing to change any of my beliefs/claims.

4/17/2011 11:49:30 AM

Quote :

"When Christians, or any other religious zealots, start attempting to use logic and evidence to make a compelling case for the supernatural (which by definition defies the laws of nature), I sort of lose interest in the conversation. There's no way it will be productive."

I'm not trying to make ANY case for Christianity, dude. Someone claimed to have compelling evidence against Christianity. I simply asked him for it. He then said the burden of proof was on me.

Quote :

"You have to prove its validity, not the other way around."

Bullshit. I'm the one who said "it's unreliable." That is the claim being made. I'm simply asking for proof of this.

Quote :

"Until you can do that, it is an unreliable source."

Bullshit. You can't come out and make a claim and say "it's true until proven otherwise." disco_stu made an unsubstantiated claim. I called him out on it.

4/17/2011 4:38:59 PM

Quote :

"Bullshit. You can't come out and make a claim and say "it's true until proven otherwise." disco_stu made an unsubstantiated claim. I called him out on it."

Yes, you can. It's true that the Bible is an unreliable source of information until you can prove otherwise. You're wrong.

4/17/2011 6:17:16 PM

all this aside, aaronburro, why don't you worship Zeus?

4/18/2011 8:57:35 AM

Quote :

"It's true that the Bible is an unreliable source of information until you can prove otherwise."

And I'm going to need you to provide evidence of this. It's not my job to refute your claim. It is your job to support your own claim.

4/18/2011 6:07:47 PM

You are full of shit. You don't always demand the evidence regarding default truths. If I claim to have won the lottery you have no reason to believe this claim until I prove it. I can't counter your disbelief with "well you can't prove I didn't." Do you need me to provide evidence that Green Eggs and Ham isn't a divine instruction manual?

For instance, the traditions regarding Zeus. Since you cannot provide evidence that the are not true, do you by default consider them to be true? Why do you not worship Zeus?

You know damned well that it is not logically tenable to be agnostic to every claim until it is disproved. That you keep up this charade without explaining why you arbitrarily believe a particular claim when so many others have also not been disproved reeks of dishonesty.

4/18/2011 8:41:32 PM

Quote :

"For instance, the traditions regarding Zeus. Since you cannot provide evidence that the are not true, do you by default consider them to be true? Why do you not worship Zeus?"

Because we aren't talking about my beliefs. We are talking about you making a claim that is not self-evident, and then demanding I disprove it. That's not how arguments and discussion work. You made a claim, and then you didn't back it up. Then you demanded that I disprove it. That's not how it works. Support your claim, or admit that you can't.

Quote :

"You know damned well that it is not logically tenable to be agnostic to every claim until it is disproved."

Of course. But we're not talking about my beliefs here. We are talking about people who claim to have compelling evidence against a particular religion and then fail to deliver. My claim isn't "you can't disprove it, so I'll believe it," which you seem to be running with for some odd reason

4/18/2011 10:28:06 PM

Quote :

"Because we aren't talking about my beliefs. We are talking about you making a claim that is not self-evident, and then demanding I disprove it. That's not how arguments and discussion work. You made a claim, and then you didn't back it up. Then you demanded that I disprove it. That's not how it works. Support your claim, or admit that you can't."

It's Russell's Teapot! I don't know how else to explain it to you. "The Bible is not divinely inspired" is not itself the claim. It is a refutation of the claim "The Bible is divinely inspired." Books are not divinely inspired by default.

Quote :

"My claim isn't "you can't disprove it, so I'll believe it," which you seem to be running with for some odd reason"

You're refuting our lack of belief that we have based on the wholesale lack of evidentiary support. You're basically saying we have no logical basis for not believing, that evidence is required to not believe a claim. Which is horseshit. I don't have to prove not-P for every P.

Keep deflecting the question of your atheism in regards to Zeus. I'm not even asking you about your beliefs. I'm asking about your non-beliefs. I dare say it's not even a personal affair regarding your non-belief in Zeus. No one believes in Zeus. Why won't you discuss why you don't?

4/18/2011 10:53:28 PM

Quote :

""The Bible is not divinely inspired" is not itself the claim."

seems like the claim you are making. And you brought it up. But, you are right, that's not the claim. Your claim was "the Bible is unreliable." Now, provide the facts or shut the fuck up!

Quote :

"You're basically saying we have no logical basis for not believing"

not at all what I am saying. Show me where I have said that

Quote :

"Keep deflecting the question of your atheism in regards to Zeus. I'm not even asking you about your beliefs. I'm asking about your non-beliefs. I dare say it's not even a personal affair regarding your non-belief in Zeus. No one believes in Zeus. Why won't you discuss why you don't?"

because it's irrelevant. No one has claimed that they have compelling evidence against Zeus. I'm not interested in talking about that, because no one else has talked about it. You are running with this for no fucking reason. I don't care about Zeus, you don't care about Zeus. Why the fuck is he even being discussed? Right.

Quote :

"Books are not divinely inspired by default."

no, divine inspiration is not attributed to books by default. There's a difference. Moreover, again, YOU are the one making the claim that the Bible is "unreliable." Regardless of whatever the hell that might actually mean, I'm simply asking you to support your claim. "Most books aren't divinely inspired" is not a valid rebuttal, because you are talking about one specific book. We are talking about the Bible. Explain, with compelling evidence, why the Bible is not divinely inspired. That Charles Dickens isn't divinely inspired is 100% irrelevant to the claim being discussed

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM. Reason : ]

4/18/2011 10:55:46 PM

Quote :

"We are talking about the Bible. Explain, with compelling evidence, why the Bible is not divinely inspired"

Really??? The burden of proof doesn't always lie on the person making the claim. For instance, if I say that there is no such thing as a leprechaun, I don't have to prove that there are no leprechauns. There is no evidence that leprechauns exist, therefore I can say with near-certainty that there are no leprechauns. Similarly, we have no evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired, therefore we can assume with near-certainty that the Bible is not divinely inspired.

Please read this: http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/articles/cantprovenegative.html

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 11:36 PM. Reason : link]

4/18/2011 11:24:30 PM

Quote :

"Really??? The burden of proof doesn't always lie on the person making the claim."

Actually, yes it fucking does. That's kind of how it works. until I make a counter claim, then the onus is on the original person to support his own claim.

moreover, your "can't prove a negative" does not apply here. Actually, it applies to the original claim quite well. "The Bible is not divinely inspired" is a claim. It has not been supported with evidence. That means that the claim has not been supported. I am right to request support. However, I am NOT saying that his lack of support means that the Bible is divinely inspired. Rather, I am saying that it means his claim is unsupported, which has been my fucking point the whole time: that claims of "discrediting Christianity" or any other religion are not supported by compelling evidence.

Quote :

"Similarly, we have no evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired, therefore we can assume with near-certainty that the Bible is not divinely inspired."

Yes, we can assume, but that does not make it so. Likewise, in the context of this discussion, that does not actually make the Bible not divinely inspired, nor does it make the Bible "unreliable." Remember disco_stu tried to present a proof which relied on this claim. It is right of me to show that his proof is flawed



wow, looks like you need to read your own link, lol

Quote :

"Secondly, a person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion."

[Edited on April 19, 2011 at 12:06 AM. Reason : ]

4/19/2011 12:03:51 AM

^He is pretty obviously talking about positive assertions.

This is from an intro to philosophy class:

The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a fallacy to claim that X exists unless you prove that there is no X. What is improper is for a person to claim that "X exists" and when asked to prove it the person who made the claim uses as a defense of "X exists" the claim next claim that noone has proven that X does not exist.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/Burden-of-Proof.htm

But by all means, if you want to continue this line of stupid and ignore the rules of logic, go ahead.

4/19/2011 12:12:15 AM

Quote :

"He is pretty obviously talking about positive assertions."

no, he's talking about ANY assertion. otherwise he would have said so.

Quote :

"The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a fallacy to claim that X exists unless you prove that there is no X. What is improper is for a person to claim that "X exists" and when asked to prove it the person who made the claim uses as a defense of "X exists" the claim next claim that noone has proven that X does not exist."

Only one problem. This is not a case where someone is saying "X exists" and another is saying "X does not exist." Instead, this is a case of someone making a claim, and someone else asking for evidence to support that claim.

get this through your skull: I am NOT saying that his inability to support it makes the counter-claim of "The Bible is divinely inspired" true. Rather, I am saying that his inability to support the claim makes his claim not supported. Understand the difference.

4/19/2011 12:28:03 AM

Quote :

"Only one problem. This is not a case where someone is saying "X exists" and another is saying "X does not exist." Instead, this is a case of someone making a claim, and someone else asking for evidence to support that claim. get this through your skull: I am NOT saying that his inability to support it makes the counter-claim of "The Bible is divinely inspired" true. Rather, I am saying that his inability to support the claim makes his claim not supported. Understand the difference."

The assertion is that the Bible is divinely inspired (yes, I understand that's not what you are saying, but it's the point he's arguing against). disco_stu is rejecting that assertion.

In other words:

x = divine inspiration of the Bible

Claim that "x" exists: The Bible is divinely inspired.
Claim that "x" does not exist: The Bible is not divinely inspired.

The burden of proof lies on the first claim.

Again, I get that you are playing some perverted form of devil's advocate where the rules of philosophical debate don't exist.

4/19/2011 7:59:12 AM

It's clear to everyone but aaronburro that when I said 'unreliable' I meant pretty plainly 'not the divinely inspired instruction manual it claims to be.' Which is true for every other religious text until proven otherwise.

Quote :

"not at all what I am saying. Show me where I have said that"

conceded. you never used these exact words.

Quote :

"because it's irrelevant. No one has claimed that they have compelling evidence against Zeus. I'm not interested in talking about that, because no one else has talked about it. You are running with this for no fucking reason. I don't care about Zeus, you don't care about Zeus. Why the fuck is he even being discussed? Right."

It's relevant because you don't believe in Zeus not because there is compelling evidence against it, but because there is no compelling evidence for it. It's relevant because you can replace the word Zeus in that sentence with God and figure out a one-sentence support of atheism and refutation of theism that doesn't require aaronburro's secret world of insane logic absolutism to unravel.

Quote :

"no, divine inspiration is not attributed to books by default. There's a difference. Moreover, again, YOU are the one making the claim that the Bible is "unreliable." Regardless of whatever the hell that might actually mean, I'm simply asking you to support your claim. "Most books aren't divinely inspired" is not a valid rebuttal, because you are talking about one specific book. We are talking about the Bible. Explain, with compelling evidence, why the Bible is not divinely inspired. That Charles Dickens isn't divinely inspired is 100% irrelevant to the claim being discussed"

Here's how I know you're being deliberately obtuse. You claim to not understand my claim and yet assert that it's unsubstantiated.

I don't have to explain, with compelling evidence, why the Bible is not divinely inspired. It claims itself to be divinely inspired. This is unproven and considered false until proven.

4/19/2011 8:54:34 AM

Unknown reliability is effectively the same as unreliability.

Nevermind the fact that you've already been given plenty of evidence in this thread of the unreliability of the bible. There's no point in discussing this when you ignore science, ignore history, and presuppose the supernatural.

4/19/2011 9:22:19 AM

Quote :

"disco_stu is rejecting that assertion."

so then how about I just reject his assertion and then he has to support it. OH WAIT, THAT'S HOW IT ACTUALLY WORKS!!!

Quote :

"The burden of proof lies on the first claim."

Yes, on the person who is making that first claim. no one is making that claim here. instead, someone else is making a claim. which requires proof. or we say the claim is not supported.

Quote :

"Which is true for every other religious text until proven otherwise."

It would not necessarily be "true". It would just be assumed. There's a difference.

Quote :

"You claim to not understand my claim and yet assert that it's unsubstantiated."

I don't have to 100% understand your claim in order to see that you offered zero evidence to support it.

Quote :

"I don't have to explain, with compelling evidence, why the Bible is not divinely inspired. It claims itself to be divinely inspired. This is unproven and considered false until proven."

Yes, but IN YOUR PROOF, you took this as a truth, which is where I take issue.

Quote :

"Nevermind the fact that you've already been given plenty of evidence in this thread of the unreliability of the bible."

and where was that evidence again? lemme guess: "God doesn't do what I want him to do" and "The Bible doesn't do what it never said it does." Got it

[Edited on April 19, 2011 at 3:58 PM. Reason : ]

4/19/2011 3:47:27 PM

Quote :

"Yes, on the person who is making that first claim. no one is making that claim here. instead, someone else is making a claim. which requires proof. or we say the claim is not supported."

Then get it through your skull that "The bible is not divinely inspired" is a refutation of the claim "The bible is divinely inspired" making that claim the 1st claim.

Quote :

"It would not necessarily be "true". It would just be assumed. There's a difference."

Semantics. Yawn.

Quote :

"Yes, but IN YOUR PROOF, you took this as a truth, which is where I take issue."

I'm not surprised that you took issue with something that isn't a logically absolute self-evident fact by your insane definitions of evidence as a support for a claim. Yawn again. This is getting droll.

If only you'd hold your own beliefs up to the same standards of "truth", "true", "evidence" you hold in your arguments. I think you'd be nuts, however, because you'd probably not even believe any of your experiences as objectively true.

Why don't you believe in Zeus again?

4/19/2011 3:57:06 PM

Quote :

"Then get it through your skull that "The bible is not divinely inspired" is a refutation of the claim "The bible is divinely inspired" making that claim the 1st claim."

and who where made that claim? Right, no one. ergo, burden of proof is on the first claim, especially since it is used in a proof.

Quote :

"Semantics. Yawn."

No, there's actually a difference, and it is meaningful. True would mean that every religious text is bullshit. But that might not actually be the case. Instead, it is "unsubstantiated."

Quote :

"If only you'd hold your own beliefs up to the same standards of "truth", "true", "evidence" you hold in your arguments."

Look, this isn't fucking about me. This is about someone else coming in and saying they have "evidence" when they really don't. The fact that someone can come in here with a straight face and say "the burden of proof isn't on the person making the claim" is incredible!

Quote :

"Unknown reliability is effectively the same as unreliability."

in some contexts, yes. but, when the discussion is specifically about the veracity of a given text, then you can't pull that sleight of hand. nice try

[Edited on April 19, 2011 at 4:11 PM. Reason : ]

4/19/2011 4:06:44 PM

you're hopeless

4/19/2011 4:15:05 PM

an admission of defeat. well done!

besides, coming from the person who believes the burden of proof doesn't fall on the person making the claim...

[Edited on April 19, 2011 at 4:18 PM. Reason : ]

4/19/2011 4:17:47 PM