Burden of Proof - Does it ever lie with Atheists?

[shadow9d9]

...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.

No, you wouldn't... since there is no evidence to show that the events ever DID exist..

You just don't get it. The Bible is a fantasy. If you want to prove it is real, it is up to you to prove it. I can't prove to you that flying unicorns don't exist because there is no evidence that it does.

Your god or any of the other 1000s of gods are the same.. and your religious book is the same as all the others... If you want to prove something is real, you use evidence... That is up to you to provide.

The Bible is NO different than any other fantasy book. You just happen to believe all the magic is real. That is your choice, but don't expect other people to believe it without a shred of evidence.

 

[shadow9d9]

In not passing the burden on to the reader. You simply believe what you're reading, or you don't.

People put the BURDEN ON THEMSELEVES by making claims about what they're reading.

Nope. Repeating yourself won't make it true. You cannot disprove fantasy because it never existed in the first place.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, you wouldn't... since there is no evidence to show that the events ever DID exist..

You just don't get it. The Bible is a fantasy. If you want to prove it is real, it is up to you to prove it. I can't prove to you that flying unicorns don't exist because there is no evidence that it does.

Your god or any of the other 1000s of gods are the same.. and your religious book is the same as all the others... If you want to prove something is real, you use evidence... That is up to you to provide.

The Bible is NO different than any other fantasy book. You just happen to believe all the magic is real. That is your choice, but don't expect other people to believe it without a shred of evidence.

So in other words, you read it, looked for evidence, and came to the conclusion you arrived at?

Give me an honest answer - have you ever studied it?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I looked up the Cyrus thing.

If the sequence of events happened as some Christians claim, then it does appear it would be a valid example of a prophecy.

The problem is that we don't really have any way of ascertaining the timing. The prophecy in what we now call the book of Isaiah could have easily been added after the fact, and many scholars believe that that is exactly what happened. The books of the bible were subject to countless revisions, edits, compilations and decisions on what to include or exclude, that it's entirely possible.

These sorts of "prophecies" don't really help establish the accuracy or legitimacy of the bible, because they require the same faith as believing the bible as accurate does.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

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.

There are no various types of atheism. Atheism IS the EXTREME: "God does not exist." This is a positive declaration, which requires proof, and there is as much of that as there is for the statement, "God exists".

Atheist (extreme: god doesn't exist, period)
Agnostic (everything in the middle from really really really improbable to really really really likely)
Theist (extreme: god exists, period)

The notion that you have strong atheists and weak atheists is ignoring the definition of atheist. We are not going to change the definition of a word to suit people who wish they were something they are not.

I find most people who describe themselves as atheists really have the following attitude: "I wish not to believe in god because I have witnessed absurdity (young-earth creationists, Pentecostal snake handlers), hypocrisy (sponsored war, lavish clergy), and evil (pedophilia, female repression) in religion; people who believe in god are clearly insane." Many such claim a background in scientific principles simply because they were educated in a liberal environment, so they often see religion as an impediment to scientific and cultural progress. They are not however, atheists. Not wishing to believe some is not the same as having a reason (evidence) not to believe. Those who think they have evidence against are only making the same blunder as those claiming evidence for.

At any rate, atheism always makes a positive assertion, and we're not going to change the definition of a word because you don't like it.

 

[Retro Rob]

I looked up the Cyrus thing.

If the sequence of events happened as some Christians claim, then it does appear it would be a valid example of a prophecy.

The problem is that we don't really have any way of ascertaining the timing. The prophecy in what we now call the book of Isaiah could have easily been added after the fact, and many scholars believe that that is exactly what happened. The books of the bible were subject to countless revisions, edits, compilations and decisions on what to include or exclude, that it's entirely possible.

These sorts of "prophecies" don't really help establish the accuracy or legitimacy of the bible, because they require the same faith as believing the bible as accurate does.

You have not considered the premise those scholars have -- prophecy can't happen, especially this sort, this far in advance. Cyrus was a real king, they dated at least the timing of his conquest. From what I've read, the only thing they deny is the prophetic part.

Why would they agree with 90 percent of the prophecy, but deny the prophetic part? Isn't it obvious?

You're basically asserting that there was some conspiracy, and this is what I ask proof of. You're speculating -- that's the main reason why people don't believe it, and requires some evidence on the part of the speculator.

I interpret your post as saying: "someone intentionally added that later to fien prophecy"

This is a heavy charge, and requires more than mere speculation like the stuff you're trying to stick to a wall.

 

[TraumaRN]

I don't remember the specific texts, and I'm not home. It's the one concerning the releasing of the Jews form Babylonian exile in 587 B.C.E (some have the date at 607).

It was prophesied, via Isaiah, that the King of Persia (Cyrus) would do it, and the Gates of Babylon would be left wide open -- they left the gates open and were partying at the time as well.

Cyrus did do it, as foretold.

How about this. Someone changed the prophecy post facto to fit the story. OR if they twisted the facts to fit the story? Those are both very real possibilities. Believing that a prophecy coming true as proof is really really shaky evidence in my mind, especially when it happened thousands of years ago and it's very very easy for the true facts to be lost to history.

As an atheist I have multiple issues with the bible. First and foremost it bears many similarities to various other religions in the middle east. It borrows many parables and stories from other religions in the area.

I also have difficulty reconciling the idea of the loving kind God with what is actually written in the bible. There is lots of immoral, frightening, violent and frankly disturbing things written in the bible. If I were a Christian I'd have difficulty reconciling those facts, and when I bring these points up usually some large amount of cognitive dissonance comes forth from a believer.

My thoughts as an atheist echo Carl Sagan's thought experiment regarding a god or gods of any sort.

Look back again at the pale blue dot(the Earth) of the preceding chapter. Take a good long look at it. Stare at the dot for any length of time and then try to convince yourself that God created the whole Universe for one of the 10 million or so species of life that inhabit that speck of dust. Now take it a step further: Imagine that everything was made just for a single shade of that species, or gender, or ethnic or religious subdivision. If this doesn't strike you as unlikely, pick another dot. Imagine it to be inhabited by a different form of intelligent life. They, too, cherish the notion of a God who has created everything for their benefit. How seriously do you take their claim?

Simply put I do not take the claim seriously. The idea of any god or gods strikes me as highly unlikely to be true but if some firm, solid, repeatably tested, verified evidence was put forth I would example the validity of that claim and adjust my views accordingly based upon the evidence.

 

[fskimospy]

You have not considered the premise those scholars have -- prophecy can't happen, especially this sort, this far in advance. Cyrus was a real king, they dated at least the timing of his conquest. From what I've read, the only thing they deny is the prophetic part.

Why would they agree with 90 percent of the prophecy, but deny the prophetic part? Isn't it obvious?

You're basically asserting that there was some conspiracy, and this is what I ask proof of. You're speculating -- that's the main reason why people don't believe it, and requires some evidence on the part of the speculator.

I interpret your post as saying: "someone intentionally added that later to fien prophecy"

This is a heavy charge, and requires more than mere speculation like the stuff you're trying to stick to a wall.

No, that's not what he's saying.

Your prophecy requires two principal elements:
1.) The prophecy must offer an accurate description of an event.
2.) The prophecy must come meaningfully before that event, without some sort of inside knowledge.

In order to prove that passage prophetic you must establish both parts. Even if you are granted part 1, you have not successfully provided evidence for part 2. The burden of proof is still entirely on you.

This is in many ways like the elements of a crime. In order to fulfill your definition every element must be established. Until you are able to do so, you haven't really gotten anywhere.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, that's not what he's saying.

Your prophecy requires two principal elements:
1.) The prophecy must offer an accurate description of an event.
2.) The prophecy must come meaningfully before that event, without some sort of inside knowledge.

In order to prove that passage prophetic you must establish both parts. Even if you are granted part 1, you have not successfully provided evidence for part 2. The burden of proof is still entirely on you.

This is in many ways like the elements of a crime. In order to fulfill your definition every element must be established. Until you are able to do so, you haven't really gotten anywhere.

Please... :roll:

Part 2 can easily be speculated against because no one alive today was there.

We have a name, event, a even the name of the person predicted to carry out said event. The event happened, by the person named. We even have scholarly support for it all the way up to the part people don't want to believe.

That's more than enough proof.

You're just in denial.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Please... :roll:

Part 2 can easily be speculated against because no one alive today was there.

We have a name, event, a even the name of the person predicted to carry out said event. The event happened, by the person named. We even have scholarly support for it all the way up to the part people don't want to believe.

That's more than enough proof.

You're just in denial.

No it's not enough because there is plenty of reasonable doubt cast on the prophecy due to the absolute certainty regarding the fact that the Bible has been revised numerous times and could have easily been so to support such.

Also, to be taken into consideration is that any prophecy is automatically an extraordinary claim, and requires such proof. No prophecy I am aware of has ever been proven accurate. There is no evidence what-so-ever for anything metaphysical.

 

[waggy]

lol irony.


The problem is the bible has a ton of fact in it mixed with stuff that seems from a fiction book.

Trouble is you can't PROVE IF it is real or not.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well thanks guys.

Just put that out there to gauge the responses.

 

[fskimospy]

Please... :roll:

Part 2 can easily be speculated against because no one alive today was there.

We have a name, event, a even the name of the person predicted to carry out said event. The event happened, by the person named. We even have scholarly support for it all the way up to the part people don't want to believe.

That's more than enough proof.

You're just in denial.

Hey, I predicted you were going to make this thread when I was sitting in my apartment ten years ago. Sure it's easy to speculate against because nobody on this message board was there but me, but clearly I was right because this thread happened.

That's more than enough proof, you're just in denial.

There are many documents for which we are able to reasonably verify the time period for. Apparently there are not any for this prophecy. Your lack of ability to prove what you are claiming is your problem, not ours. If you can't see a MAJOR problem with being unable to verify that such a prediction was actually in fact a prediction, you're just engaging in wishful thinking.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

lol irony.


The problem is the bible has a ton of fact in it mixed with stuff that seems from a fiction book.

Trouble is you can't PROVE IF it is real or not.

List some facts. I think it would be nice if someone would list some, since I have seen this assertion previously, and also without any list, as if it's common knowledge that there are facts in the Bible. Let's pretend it's not, and list some.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Well thanks guys.

Just put that out there to gauge the responses.

Ummmm, we're not done.

I answered yes to the question posed in the title by the way; there is always a burden of proof on atheists, but it's not all wine and roses, because there aren't really any atheists, sane ones at any rate, but since then you have greatly expanded the topic, and now that hard questions are being put to you, you can't just bail. That's disingenuous.

 

[Retro Rob]

Hey, I predicted you were going to make this thread when I was sitting in my apartment ten years ago. Sure it's easy to speculate against because nobody on this message board was there but me, but clearly I was right because this thread happened.

That's more than enough proof, you're just in denial.

There are many documents for which we are able to reasonably verify the time period for. Apparently there are not any for this prophecy. Your lack of ability to prove what you are claiming is your problem, not ours. If you can't see a MAJOR problem with being unable to verify that such a prediction was actually in fact a prediction, you're just engaging in wishful thinking.

So you have nothing to argue against it, right?

Nothing hard, concrete. I didn't expect you to. All "ifs and "guesswork".

 

[Retro Rob]

Ummmm, we're not done.

I answered yes to the question posed in the title by the way; there is always a burden of proof on atheists, but it's not all wine and roses, because there aren't really any atheists, sane ones at any rate, but since then you have greatly expanded the topic, and now that hard questions are being put to you, you can't just bail. That's disingenuous.

I bail on speculative claims because they can never be refuted - never. The nature of those claims have almost always no factual basis to attempt to rebut.

Secondly, if you have fixed in your mind something isn't real, you will never believe it no matter the evidence.

The only people I've come across that examine this sort of evidence is open minded skeptics. These type of people normally don't speculate and deny like some of you have done. They consider the evidence before them without a predetermined conclusion.

You guys seem to be doing the complete opposite.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Cyrus was a real king, they dated at least the timing of his conquest. From what I've read, the only thing they deny is the prophetic part.

Well, there probably is actual evidence of when he was king. There is absolutely none establishing when those passages in the book of Isaiah were written.

I interpret your post as saying: "someone intentionally added that later to fien prophecy"

This is a heavy charge, and requires more than mere speculation like the stuff you're trying to stick to a wall.

You consider it a "heavy charge" because you believe it to be true.

I see holy books as serving the primary purpose of legitimizing a religion, and the insertion of "guaranteed true" prophecies is entirely consistent with that.

Regardless, the point remains that you can't argue for the validity of a book by using something that presupposes that same validity. It's circular.

At any rate, atheism always makes a positive assertion, and we're not going to change the definition of a word because you don't like it.

I didn't make up the terms I am using; they are commonplace. This is a good overview, using slightly different but similar terminology.

There is indeed a difference between saying "I don't believe in gods because there's no evidence they exist" and saying "I believe gods do not exist".

 

[TraumaRN]

I bail on speculative claims because they can never be refuted - never. The nature of those claims have almost always no factual basis to attempt to rebut.

Secondly, if you have fixed in your mind something isn't real, you will never believe it no matter the evidence.

The only people I've come across that examine this sort of evidence is open minded skeptics. These type of people normally don't speculate and deny like some of you have done. They consider the evidence before them without a predetermined conclusion.

You guys seem to be doing the complete opposite.

I consider myself an open minded skeptic. But just by being a skeptic means I must question everything. It is perfectly acceptable to speculate on the nature of these things because by speculating we are allowing logic and reason to shine through. Just because something has scholarly backing doesn't make it true. Again I say, things must be verifiable, testable and repeatedly tested to ascertain the truth.

Being a skeptic requires you to speculate or put a better way, have multiple hypothesis, on the nature of a claim.

Also speculative claims CAN be refuted. They just require evidence.

 

[jackstar7]

lol irony.


The problem is the bible has a ton of fact in it mixed with stuff that seems from a fiction book.

Trouble is you can't PROVE IF it is real or not.

Would you mind listing some number of the facts in the bible then?

 

[Retro Rob]

I consider myself an open minded skeptic. But just by being a skeptic means I must question everything. It is perfectly acceptable to speculate on the nature of these things because by speculating we are allowing logic and reason to shine through. Just because something has scholarly backing doesn't make it true. Again I say, things must be verifiable, testable and repeatedly tested to ascertain the truth.

Being a skeptic requires you to speculate or put a better way, have multiple hypothesis, on the nature of a claim.

That's my bad then.

I normally associate speculation with negativity when it comes to the Bible. More than times than not, we speculate to attempt to prove something wrong instead of speculating to find out if its true. There's a huge difference, IMO.

The premise is everything.

 

[waggy]

Would you mind listing some number of the facts in the bible then?

lol

take out all the stuff about miracles etc. the bible is a collection of history and places. I am sure you understand that right?

 

[Retro Rob]

Well, there probably is actual evidence of when he was king. There is absolutely none establishing when those passages in the book of Isaiah were written.

Fair enough.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You've been saying what I've been saying all long in different words - someone sayin the Bible is fiction is indeed saying its characters are as well especially if they aren't specificitly pointing out a certain scenario.

The book "1776" is a work of fiction. Every character in it was a real person. All the major events portrayed actually happened. It is still fiction.

Please... :roll:

Part 2 can easily be speculated against because no one alive today was there.

We have a name, event, a even the name of the person predicted to carry out said event. The event happened, by the person named. We even have scholarly support for it all the way up to the part people don't want to believe.

That's more than enough proof.

You're just in denial.

Sunday I went fishing at White Rock Lake. I was fishing for 8 hours. I ate a ham sandwich for lunch, and drank a beer with it. The beer was a Double Brown Stout. I used a Zebco Rod and spincast reel, and night grubs as bait. I got a sunburn on my back. I caught a catfish. It was a hundred feet long and weighted 1500 pounds.

Everything in my story can be verified except the size and weight of my fish. The rest is enough to prove that I caught the biggest catfish in history right?
If I had said it was 3 feet long and weighed 15 lbs no one would contest my story. This is what is meant by extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

[Retro Rob]

The book "1776" is a work of fiction. Every character in it was a real person. All the major events portrayed actually happened. It is still fiction.



Sunday I went fishing at White Rock Lake. I was fishing for 8 hours. I ate a ham sandwich for lunch, and drank a beer with it. The beer was a Double Brown Stout. I used a Zebco Rod and spincast reel, and night grubs as bait. I got a sunburn on my back. I caught a catfish. It was a hundred feet long and weighted 1500 pounds.

Everything in my story can be verified except the size and weight of my fish. The rest is enough to prove that I caught the biggest catfish in history right?
If I had said it was 3 feet long and weighed 15 lbs no one would contest my story. This is what is meant by extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Where's evidence of the fish? We have evidence of Cyrus, his tomb and his scroll (or roll, I don't remember which), there's evidence of the date of this conquest, there was even a city named "Babylon".

The failure of this silly analogy is that with the prophecy, several people are involved at the least -- the Bible writer, Cyrus, his army, the people of Babylon, etc... Oh, and God himself. Not to mention one other writer mention Cyrus by name, Jeremiah.

No one is involved with this "catch" other than you.