Atheism is the rejection of the claim that deities exist, it is not making a claim of its own, thus the onus is solely on those making the claim (theists) to provide the evidence in order to give the atheist reason to be theist.
And getting down to the meat of this topic, even if we can prove that certain parts of the bible are historically accurate, that does not reinforce other parts of it.
For instance, if you still say the Bible is a fable because 'Omg billionz of animals in the ark where did they all poops?!" then you haven't really tried too hard to read it. No, you haven't.
If they don't believe the evidence that God exists, then they're free. But once they claim God doesn't exists, they have a burden. Most reasonable people are more agnostic, or could I say "weak atheists"?
Rob, you are not going to make accurate statements about atheism until you read up on and properly understand the differences in the various types.
As I and others have said, the onus of proof is always on the one making the positive assertion -- that something exists, that a book is true, that a theory is correct. There is no more onus on me to prove that the events in the bible didn't occur than there is onus on you to prove that the events in The Lord of the Rings didn't occur.
That's not going to change just because you don't like it.
No. This is unacceptable and a crap game some Atheists like to play so they won't EVER have to add substance to a claim against God or the Bible, and keep the all of the responsibility on the believer.
If they don't believe the evidence that God exists, then they're free. But once they claim God doesn't exists, they have a burden. Most reasonable people are more agnostic, or could I say "weak atheists"?
Since its impossible to disprove God, its only a belief that he doesn't exists - it can't be claimed factual. Anything that can't be disproved with facts is only a belief.
The mental hoops some atheists jump through to avoid their burden is amusing. This, of course, isn't blanketing all atheists -- there are maybe a couple in this thread whom I have respect for because they back their claims -- others, not so much. In fact, in my experience, they have little to no evidence outside of conspiracy theory claims that the Apostles had ulterior motives by "cherry picking" certain parts of the Bible to keep and other parts to discard. This claim carries absolutely not one single shred of evidence.
Of course they left out parts that were not inspired of god, like the apocryphal writings and rightfully so. But one would have to substantiate the motives behind this and if it was a conspiracy concocted by them.
Sorry sport, you can't have it both ways. If some of you can isolate one or even several accounts to discredit the entire book, I can find several to validate the entire book.
...once you claim I'm lying, then you have to prove it.
I would have to prove the events in The Lord of the Rings didn't occur if I wrote a book denouncing those events, or made public claims against the events.
What the hell!?
No! What? Holy hell! What in the world are you doing?
You can't just make up a bunch of shit and then pass the burden on to the reader. That's not the way this works at all.
I would have to prove the events in The Lord of the Rings didn't occur if I wrote a book denouncing those events, or made public claims against the events.
Did the events in the Lord of the Rings actually occur?
Yes or no, please.
Thank you.
You've now made a "public claim against the events" in LoR. Are you required to prove that they didn't happen?
How could you even if you wanted to?
This is the core of the argument people are trying to convey here -- first, that there are thousands of books, holy or otherwise, that people think are true; and second, that disproving that events occurred is usually impossible.
ugh this argument is silly.
Persnolly i think if you make a claim you need to be able to prove it. Though if you disagree with said claim you should try to disprove it. Some things you can't wich is where the problem lays.
Nope, the loR was fictional from the jump, the Bible isn't fictional.
Rob look up Burden of proof on Wikipedia.
Whether it is fictional or not is the entire argument. Thus, flatly stating that it "isn't fictional" is what is commonly known as begging the question.
How do you know the bible isn't fictional?
Do you mean "entirely fictional" or certain accounts, to be clear?
And to be honest, I don't want to even waste the time looking this stuff up and sharing it with you -- post history shows you probably wouldn't care anyway.
..and you used to be religious so you undoubtedly can find them yourself.
You tell me -- which parts are fictional and which are not? And how do you know?
You've taken this approach several times in the past when asked a question that you didn't want to answer. I've been patient and respectful towards you in this thread, and I'm always open to having my mind changed based on new evidence and arguments. Refusing to provide any because you claim I will ignore them is intellectually dishonest.
What specific passages and prophesies are you talking about?
Nope, the loR was fictional from the jump, the Bible isn't fictional. Big difference between adding substance to a claim against fact and fiction.
Your analogy was over before you even typed it out.