Burden of Proof - Does it ever lie with Atheists?

[randomrogue]

One is based on evidence. The other is made up.

 

[Retro Rob]

One is based on evidence. The other is made up.

That's a conclusion you can make. It doesn't make it right, though.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Hey guys, I hate that this thread is passing me by but topics like these move pretty far in a 20 hour window. I just thought I would drop this off for you as a great example of testable prophecy fulfillment in the Bible. It covers the basics. The date of the prophecy is well established to be many hundreds of years before the events, it isn't vague at all so there is no language/interpretation barrier to deal with. It's just easy to read and easy to test. You couldn't ask for a better example. I'm sure it'll spawn many google searches to disprove it, and I hope it does- I do that will all of my own personal beliefs.
Here is the link and I'll put the core of it below.

Three problems here.

First, the same problem as this business with Cyrus -- we don't know when these texts were actually written. This alone makes this useless as proof of the validity of the bible, as has been explained already.

Second, the city of Tyre has been continuously inhabited since Antiquity. It's been through wars and sacks and so forth, but so have all cities that still exist after thousands of years. It was not destroyed.

Third, even if Tyre was utterly destroyed, would that really be an impressive prediction? Cities sometimes get destroyed. The Levant has been conquered and reconquered dozens of times because of its strategic location, and as a sea port, Tyre would have even greater significance.

 

[shadow9d9]

That's a conclusion you can make. It doesn't make it right, though.

It is a conclusion made of evidence, versus yours which is based on wishful thinking.

 

[Retro Rob]

It is a conclusion made of evidence, versus yours which is based on wishful thinking.

I did ask you if you came to this conclusion because you read or studied it, and decided the evidence wasn't enough for you. In fact:

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?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34798644&postcount=78

I just want to know how you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a book of fiction.

 

[Retro Rob]

Three problems here.

First, the same problem as this business with Cyrus .

It's also apparently obvious I've wasted my time looking up the information and discussing it with you as well.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's also apparently obvious I've wasted my time looking up the information and discussing it with you as well.

You looked it up, and we discussed it. I simply don't thing it proves what you do, because I've pointed out major flaws with your claims that you have not addressed.

Specifically -- if there's no way to prove when a prediction was made, it's worthless. Actually, less than worthless -- it could well be deceptive.

I just want to know how you came to the conclusion that the Bible is a book of fiction.

Is the Koran a book of fiction? How do you know? If it isn't, why aren't you a Muslim?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

To say believers arrive at their conclusion void of evidence is completely irratonal, well, believers like myself anyway.

It's completely accurate. I realize that may offend you, and I'm sorry about that, but evidence doesn't suddenly spring into existence just because you wish it was there. And there is no evidence to support the vast majority of the stories and claims of miracles and other stuff in the bible.

Feel free to convince yourself of whatever you feel it is important to believe, but you're not going to water down the definition of "evidence" without getting strong pushback from people who value the meaning of the word.

 

[Retro Rob]

Is the Koran a book of fiction? How do you know? If it isn't, why aren't you a Muslim?

You tell me. You brought the Koran up...

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You tell me. You brought the Koran up...

Anyone can tell my position on the Koran from what I've expressed here and elsewhere.

The real question is how you decided the bible is "truth" but the Koran is not.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's completely accurate. I realize that may offend you, and I'm sorry about that, but evidence doesn't suddenly spring into existence just because you wish it was there. And there is no evidence to support the vast majority of the stories and claims of miracles and other stuff in the bible.

Feel free to convince yourself of whatever you feel it is important to believe, but you're not going to water down the definition of "evidence" without getting strong pushback from people who value the meaning of the word.

The evidence of Cyrus being a real person, and a Syrian King, sprung into existence?

 

[Retro Rob]

Anyone can tell my position on the Koran from what I've expressed here and elsewhere.

The real question is how you decided the bible is "truth" but the Koran is not.

Did I say tha Koran wasn't truth?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The evidence of Cyrus being a real person, and a Syrian King, sprung into existence?

Where is the evidence that the biblical prediction was actually written before he lived and died?

Did I say tha Koran wasn't truth?

No, you played the cutesy word games, but since you're not a Muslim, the answer is obvious. Still, please feel free to clarify at your leisure.

 

[Retro Rob]

I will go one step further Charles, since you have officially became shadow's mothpiece and yesman, no -- I can't say the Koran isn't truth, becasue I haven't read it.

Now, let him answer, or are you going to continue to play this game? I asked HIM, and you're speaking for him. I'm not going to make a claim on a book I haven't read, yet, I suspect, Shadow is. I hope I am wrong, for your sake Charles since you're putting your credibility on the line for him.

 

[TraumaRN]

I'm not sure what the name of the website has to do with it. What should an organization devoted to Christian apologetics be called? Also, there's a lot of content on that site, you must read really fast to condemn it all.
The FACT is that the city 'scraped bare' by Alexander the Great does not exist today and has never been rebuilt. The ruins are undiscovered because new settlements in the area make archeology down to that time period almost impossible. There are even some historians who believe that Old Tyre is now under water, making it quite litteraly a place for fishermen's nets.
Note that they are new settlements, not a rebuilt. The name is the only thing left of Mainland Tyre.

First off you are being utterly dishonest and moving the goalposts on this claim, moreover by doing so your bias is laid bare and it further weakens your claim because now you are twisting the words to fit the prophecy.

Secondly I don't need to read the entire site, although I did read most of their history, mission statement and a few articles. From what I read and saw on the site, they are clearly a very biased source and one that is NOT, I repeat NOT trustworthy.

And you have shown to be unworthy of trust as well since you cannot make a claim and then change the conditions of that claim after myself and one other person have given reasonable, logical refutations of your claim.

For further reading on moving the goalposts...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I will go one step further Charles, since you have officially became shadow's mothpiece and yesman... you're putting your credibility on the line for him.

Just as a point of order -- no, I am not.

This is an open discussion forum, and I'm responding as myself for myself.

 

[Retro Rob]

Just as a point of order -- no, I am not.

This is an open discussion forum, and I'm responding as myself for myself.

Well, lets put this Koran business to rest right now, I haven't read it so I reserve judgment.

You've read the Bible, you've passed your judgment (legitmately, might I add!). I was wondering if shadow has done the same.

I don't think we can have a honest discussion about something someone hasn't read.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Sorry, Rob, but I don't think this has been an honest discussion since the very beginning.

Further to that point, your "Koran dancing" here is rather disingenuous. It's not necessary to read a book in its entirety to state whether you think it is fact or fiction, and the same applies to him and the bible. We're talking about some of the most widely read and discussed manuscripts in history, and it's quite easy to assess them based on summaries of their contents.

 

[Retro Rob]

Sorry, Rob, but I don't think this has been an honest discussion since the very beginning.

Further to that point, your "Koran dancing" here is rather disingenuous. It's not necessary to read a book in its entirety to state whether you think it is fact or fiction, and the same applies to him and the bible. We're talking about some of the most widely read and discussed manuscripts in history, and it's quite easy to assess them based on summaries of their contents.

You're not understanding me.. I haven't looked into the koran, period, ever... not in the slightest.

All I've heard about is their prophet Muhammed, that's it... and that's because it gets media coverage when someone "blasphemes" against him someties. Sorry if you can't accept honesty.

I have no idea what it says. Therefore, I can't say there's not any "truth" to it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Hostile Divide.

My opinion is that there are some things which are not subject to the claim of evidence. Faith is one. If one believes in a God it is not for them to prove themselves scientifically correct. The existence of God is a completely reasonable philosophical consideration, but it is not subject to scientific scrutiny any more than you ask "what happened one second before the Big Bang". By definition an all powerful being doesn't have to sit under your microscope any more than we are compelled to be understood by a virus before we can be.

That does not however compel another to believe because one person says it's true, and in Christianity it's a core principle. Despite forced "conversions" Christianity is something that one has to freely accept. The people in powerful institutions may make you do something, but they can't give you faith.

Then we have another consideration, and that's Creationism and it's subscribers claim that we consider it as a valid scientific theory. Well no, because now we're again picking a philosophy and insisting that another conform to it's standards. In this case Creationists invoke science and they are going to have to demonstrate in scientific terms why they are right and science is wrong. That never ends well, because religion is the wrong tool to examine scientific theories, like a hammer makes a poor screwdriver, and if one insists on using it a mess always results.

What I typically see is that these discussions do not bring out nuances and introspective analysis, but one side claiming the other is ignorant to prove it's superiority. Religion is not the answer to all questions, but neither is science. If one is looking for absolutes there is no evidence that there is a God, but there is no reason to believe in the innate superiority of a three pound mass of goop between our ears being able to understand all, or even being able to know what can be known.

There are truths which cannot be known and falsehoods which cannot be distinguished from truth.

 

[jackstar7]

there was no Ceaser? no rome?

there are people and places mention in the bible that are fact. note i say places and people. NOT EVENTS of miracles.

i

So Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter carries the same level of credibility with you then, right? Because there was a Lincoln...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why is it that we're so bad at discussing topics like this?

 

[randomrogue]

We're bad at it since on one had you have evidence based discussion and on the other you have people making up stories. There seems to be some people that are confused by the difference.

We literally have a few people above talking about prophesies coming true when you can't even determine that a prophesy was made. It's absurd.

 

[randomrogue]

I'll take it a step further. In the other thread, that I've linked here, I literally posted something like 20 different things and not one single one was addressed. The other side just says "no", I don't understand, or that I'm a heathen or some shit like that. Or they ignore it. It's very difficult to discuss things with people who cannot discuss facts and reason.

 

[lotus503]

You're not understanding me.. I haven't looked into the koran, period, ever... not in the slightest.

All I've heard about is their prophet Muhammed, that's it... and that's because it gets media coverage when someone "blasphemes" against him someties. Sorry if you can't accept honesty.

I have no idea what it says. Therefore, I can't say there's not any "truth" to it.

Is it a fair statement that you have read the bible but not the Koran, in large part being born and raised in a western society where cultural, social leanings are with Christianity and the bible?

Maybe had you been born in the middle east it would have been the reverse, maybe you would have read the Koran and not the bible.

If we accept those basic fundamental differences in geography as being a primary driver of ones belief systems or acceptance of faith.

We have to also examine that religious belief systems are at the core, derived from whatever Cultural and geographic influences one is subjected to.

If that is the case if we predominantly select our faith based upon where we grow up then ones faith is tied more to geography than anything else.

Being raised Baptist my first challenge of religion was based on this premise and the fact Christianity requires you to accept Jesus as god or burn in hell. I couldn't swallow that folks were going to hell based on where and how they grew up.

The fact you haven't read the Koran but are required by faith to reject it is also problematic.