For Skeptics Only: Would you ever accept the burden of proof for atheism?

[Paulomycin]

Oh, good grief...this is positively Pythonesque.

BTW, that doesn't make it "not true." Truth in comedy is always the best comedy.

 

[Paulomycin]

Nope. I'm showing you the absence of a claim.

Then it's either a negative claim or you're not even attempting to rationally communicate at all. If you want to get technical, I looked it up and the closest "" actually translates to is "ditto."

Hey, can we keep this to one thread?

Hey, can you stop desperately trying to control your opponent?

Stop arguing this exact same thing in the other thread.

You first. I'm dealing with you as an individual.

 

[Moral Orel]

Then it's either a negative claim or you're not even attempting to rationally communicate at all. If you want to get technical, I looked it up and the closest "" actually translates to is "ditto."

Nope. It's me not claiming anything.

 

[Bradskii]

Via pure subjective doubt. I'm well aware of that.

If the evidence you put forward is objectively correct or incorrect then it will be accepted or rejected accordingly.
Bethlehem is a town in Palestine: accepted.
The planet is 6,000 years old: rejected

If the evidence requires a subjective decision on my part then the weight I grant it will either increase or decrease the doubt I have regarding any claim to which it relates.
Jesus said X: It can't be proved and I personally don't think that's true. My doubt increases.
Jesus did Y: It can't be proved but I personally do think that's true. My doubt decreases.

 

[Paulomycin]

If the evidence you put forward is objectively correct or incorrect then it will be accepted or rejected accordingly.

Bethlehem is a town in Palestine: accepted.
The planet is 6,000 years old: rejected

You attempt to steer what is objectively correct according to prior underlying subjective biases. Example: "I reject that the planet is 6,000 years old because I assume the naive philosophy of uniformitarianism without question."

Or, "I reject that the planet is 6,000 years old because I assume that God cannot create a fully-developed object with apparent age."

If the evidence requires a subjective decision on my part then the weight I grant it will either increase or decrease the doubt I have regarding any claim to which it relates.
Jesus said X: It can't be proved and I personally don't think that's true. My doubt increases.

^ Here, "It can't be proved" is a gross assumption.

 

[Paulomycin]

Nope. It's me not claiming anything.

Proper English only, please. You don't get to make up your own rules of grammar.

 

[Paulomycin]

If the evidence you put forward is objectively correct or incorrect then it will be accepted or rejected accordingly.

You're essentially making promises you can't keep. As an atheist, you are hard-wired to prioritize subjective doubt over objective evidence. Just as flat-earthers do. It's what makes you similar.

 

[Bradskii]

You attempt to steer what is objectively correct according to prior underlying subjective biases. Example: "I reject that the planet is 6,000 years old because I assume the naive philosophy of uniformitarianism without question."

Or, "I reject that the planet is 6,000 years old because I assume that God cannot create a fully-developed object with apparent age."



^ Here, "It can't be proved" is a gross assumption.

Yeah. Uniformitarianism is rejected. As is Last Tuesday-ism. No futher discussions on either will be entered into. They're not up for debate.

And if you can actually prove that Jesus said something then we can go there. But one point at a time please. I don't do Whack-A-Mole.

 

[Moral Orel]

Proper English only, please. You don't get to make up your own rules of grammar.

Well you can't seem to understand the difference between saying nothing and making a negative claim. I did the best I could to show it to you, but that's all I've got.

 

[Bradskii]

You're essentially making promises you can't keep. As an atheist, you are hard-wired to prioritize subjective doubt over objective evidence. Just as flat-earthers do. It's what makes you similar.

That's strike 1 for suggesting I can't keep my promises (I'll actually give you three and out).

Make this a reasonable discussion and it might be fun. Make arbitrary accusations and it'll be quite short. So we have a single point to discuss. That which can and cannot be proved. And we're using what Jesus is reported to have said as an example.

Let's focus on that, please. And show me how we can prove that He said anything that's reported in scripture. And DO NOT make me define 'prove'.

 

[Paulomycin]

Yeah. Uniformitarianism is rejected.

Really? You do realize that the age of the Earth is founded entirely on the assumption of uniformitarianism. Right? It's not even science. Uniformitarianism is an unfalsifiable claim.

Otherwise, what are you claiming the age of the Earth is actually founded on?

And if you can actually prove that Jesus said something then we can go there. But one point at a time please. I don't do Whack-A-Mole.

The proof of the Resurrection proves Jesus said everything in the NT, including Mark 13:31.

 

[Paulomycin]

Well you can't seem to understand the difference between saying nothing and making a negative claim. I did the best I could to show it to you, but that's all I've got.

You didn't even click on the grammar link I sent, did you?

 

[Bradskii]

The proof of the Resurrection proves Jesus said everything in the NT...

I'll even grant you the resurrection for the purpose of this particular matter. But how on earth does Jesus rising from the dead prove that He actually said everything He is quoted as saying?

 

[Paulomycin]

Let's focus on that, please. And show me how we can prove that He said anything that's reported in scripture. And DO NOT make me define 'prove'.

I already said that everything hinges entirely on the Resurrection.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'll even grant you the resurrection for the purpose of this particular matter. But how on earth does Jesus rising from the dead prove that He actually said everything He is quoted as saying?

Wow. Really? @Mark Quayle Check THIS out!

It's the one miracle that proves all the rest, including the inerrancy of Scripture.

 

[Bradskii]

It's the one miracle that proves all the rest, including the inerrancy of Scripture.

Good grief. I've never seen the argument written out before so blatantly. We all make reference to it now and then. But only when someone has alluded to it. But you've actually just said that everything that the bible says must be true because the story of the resurrection is true. And we know that the resurrection is true because the bible tells us.

Please tell me this is satire.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Wow. Really? @Mark Quayle Check THIS out!

It's the one miracle that proves all the rest, including the inerrancy of Scripture.

Wow. Well, maybe he just didn't know the Bible makes claims --not just tells stories? Idk.

 

[Bradskii]

...the Bible makes claims...

I like the way you worded that, Mark. It might come in handy.

 

[Paulomycin]

Good grief. I've never seen the argument written out before so blatantly.

lol. Yup.

We all make reference to it now and then. But only when someone has alluded to it. But you've actually just said that everything that the bible says must be true because the story of the resurrection is true. And we know that the resurrection is true because the bible tells us.

Ha-ha. I didn't say that. A tiny-tiny minimal set of facts from the Bible is accepted by secular (non-believing) historians. But that's still enough to stitch together the truth of the Resurrection. Then it's all downhill from there. Seriously.

Please tell me this is satire.

Nope.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Good grief. I've never seen the argument written out before so blatantly. We all make reference to it now and then. But only when someone has alluded to it. But you've actually just said that everything that the bible says must be true because the story of the resurrection is true. And we know that the resurrection is true because the bible tells us.

Please tell me this is satire.

You don't understand propositional logic? I think he is saying that if the resurrection is true, then we can know the rest of it is true. He, for one, (and I too) believes the resurrection happened. He said the proof of the resurrection is proof that the rest is true. He had not yet shown the proof of the resurrection, (unless I didn't see a post where he did).

If I didn't know better, I'd think you reject the Bible as reliable, because, uh well, because it is the Bible, which is unreliable. Tell me this isn't a joke.