Thursday, August 27, 2009

Atheists and Some Well Known Logical Problems.

Atheists have destroyed logic. When I went to debate workshop in high school one of the first things we learned was he who asserts an argument must prove that argument. The affirmative in a debate has the obligation to prove their case. They present the warrant and plan for change. But the negative has a responsibility to prove it's arguments. A negative speaking in a debate about air bags can't get up and say "Air Bags are dangerous and they don't work, make the affirmative prove is not so" and then not present evidence to back up that claim. Any debater attempting such a strategy would be the laughing stock of the tournament. Yes Atheists use this tactic on message boards all over the net.

Atheists are always saying "the believer has the burden of proof, religion is evil prove its not." I was in a debate the other day on Tweb where the atheist said "what makes Jesus God?" I gave some arguments which he couldn't answer so they began to say "but first you have to prove he existed, and you can't do that." Sot he whole debate became a totally new topic all because he could not answer hte first one. When I objected to that tactic he says "you know nothing about logic." Then he spends the rest of the thread going "Metacrock doesn't know anything about logic he has the burden to proof to show that Jesus existed." But in reality I don't. Jesus is assumed to be a historical fact by historians the myther has the burden to prove that there's a reason to doubt it. But this atheist I was arguing with worms his way around that by saying "its impossible to prove the negative. Therefore it's unfair to ask me to prove the negative." Thus because he can't prove the negative he gets totally shift to another top or bring up his handy dandy fundie stopper fail safe (myther thesis) because he can't answer my arguments? No that's obvious a crock.


The assertion that Jesus did not exist is asking us to obliterate history as we know it. Jesus is a historical fact. To assume he was not requires a change of the status quoe, that that gives the myther the burden. Now it's true they can't prove Jesus didn't exist and that would be proving a negative but they do have a burden. They must show that there is a reason to think he didn't exist. That would be esay if he didn't exist because then the Talmudists who wrote about him would say "he's a myth, hhe didn't exist" instead of making up a bogus history. Since we have wrintings by people who met his friends and by the communities who saw him and heard him the Jesus myth hpothesis cannot trade off of shifting the burden to proof.


as Jimmy Akin on Catholic Answers says:

Let me give a more concrete example: Why should the claim "I have a brother" be held to a higher standard of proof than the claim "I do not have a brother"? Surely, if I make either claim I should have a reason for it. But isn’t the memory that I did grow up with a brother on the same footing evidentially as the memory that I did not grow up with one? Wouldn’t the fact that a brother is listed in the birth records for my family be on the same level as the fact that one is not listed in them? Why should a claim of existence require more evidence than a claim of nonexistence?

The evidence used to argue the existence or nonexistence of a brother is the same: my own memory, the testimony of relatives and family friends, what is recorded in birth and medical records. What this evidence says should settle the matter. I don’t have to produce any extra evidence to argue that a brother exists than to argue that one does not.

7 comments:

Loren said...

I do have to concede that Jesus mythicists ought to accept the burden of proof, and some of them do indeed do so.

However, Metacrock, I hope that you will accept that your side also has the burden of proof.

J.L. Hinman said...

for what? BOP is realtive to what you are trying to prove.

We don't have to Jesus existed, because history says he did. Go ask a historian.

Myrdek said...

Claims cannot be disproven, only evidence can

If I make the claim that I have a unicorn in my bedroom, the burden of proof lies on me. If I don't provide evidence for my claim then it can't be proven wrong.

Your airbag scenario is flawed because airbags have evidence for them and it makes the burden of proof fall on the one who says their unsafe. You have to go back to when they were just invented, before anyone knew if they were safe or not. At that time, the burden of proof was on the airbag makers. It was their job to prove it was safe, not for other people to prove they weren't. That would be silly don't you think? :)


You claim that Jesus existed, your only evidence for it is the bible. In science, this is considered weak evidence. That means that Jesus COULD have existed but since there are no collaborative evidence, the odds are that he did not. If you have such evidence, then please provide it and then the burden of proof will fall back on us.

Let me give you an example

2000 years from now, someone find the books of Lord of the Rings. They say that Gandalf existed and there once were other races like Goblins, elves and hobbits that lived.

Would you consider that strong evidence?

J.L. Hinman said...

Claims cannot be disproven, only evidence can


claims can disproved to the extent anything can be. You've apparently read Popper but he was talking in a different standards. Standards for debate are not the same as for science.

If I make the claim that I have a unicorn in my bedroom, the burden of proof lies on me. If I don't provide evidence for my claim then it can't be proven wrong.


at that point it doesn't need to be. If can't be proved there's no reason to accept it. Notice that is also a factual empirical claim. Not all claims need be so.

Your airbag scenario is flawed because airbags have evidence for them and it makes the burden of proof fall on the one who says their unsafe.


that WAS my point! The negative has a burden to prove arguments they advance as positive attacks on the resolution.



You have to go back to when they were just invented, before anyone knew if they were safe or not. At that time, the burden of proof was on the airbag makers. It was their job to prove it was safe, not for other people to prove they weren't. That would be silly don't you think? :)


No, the context of my argument was a debate on air bags, before they were so widely used as now. I debated air bags in college as part of the NDT resolution on product safety (1976-77).

the affirmative has the burden of proof in a debate, but the negative takes on a burden to prove the disadvantages they argue against the plan.



You claim that Jesus existed, your only evidence for it is the bible.

wrong:

(1) not the only evdience

(2) its' valid evidence

(3) We don'thave to prove that because it has PRESUMPTION!

stop fitzing about crap you don't understand and study the art of argumentation. PRESUMPTION Is a very important concept.




In science, this is considered weak evidence.

you don't shit from shinola about science. you don't know what science say about the historical existence of Jesus. science i not the rules of logic, science is subject to logic not the orbiter of it.

science has no dressiness talking about the truth of Jesus' existence in history that is not a scientific question! except int he loose sense that history is a social science.




That means that Jesus COULD have existed but since there are no collaborative evidence, the odds are that he did not.

It is not a matter of logical deduction that the Gospels have to be wrong. That is foregone conclusion the atheists push but it really points up their total lack of understanding of anything in the realm of history, argument, or logic.

there is a huge overwhelming amount of evidence that Jesus existed. the Gospels are only a small part but they are a valid part.





If you have such evidence, then please provide it and then the burden of proof will fall back on us.


http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/Index.html

Let me give you an example

2000 years from now, someone find the books of Lord of the Rings. They say that Gandalf existed and there once were other races like Goblins, elves and hobbits that lived.


that is irrelivant and stupid. any future archaeologist finding any book will have to ask "what sort of boko was this?" If they know it's ficitoanl then they know it's not real. IF they learn that ti's the testominy of a community and it's ot ficiotanl then they know it's real.

this is the fact about the Gospels that you refuse to consider, they are not works of fiction. they testimony form a community to itself.


Would you consider that strong evidence?

that is not analogous. you need to learn about logic.

this proves the point of my post. atheists cannot think logically and they do not know how logic works and they don't know how scinece works.

J.L. Hinman said...

Historical Jesus Link

Loren said...

What I mean by Metacrock's side is the proposition that Jesus Christ had been God Son of God and even 1/3 of God.

And not a common viewpoint among non-Xians and secular scholars, that Jesus Christ had been 100% human, that he had two human biological parents, that he was conceived in the usual way, that he had worked no miracles, and that the Gospels are full of unhistorical mythology about him.

Metacrock, I'm surprised that you consider such a viewpoint to be a vindication of yours, and not something that's not far removed from Jesus mythicism.

I read your Historical Jesus page, and most of your "evidence" is secondhand -- at best.

Metacrock, if you were researching the life and career of a certain Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, would you consider http://www.scientology.org the perfect source on him?

I ask that because that's what the Gospels are like about Jesus Christ, and the Gospels are our only detailed primary source on him.

J.L. Hinman said...

Historical Jesus Link

August 29, 2009 11:10 AM
Delete
Blogger Loren said...

Hi Loren. off topic question. where do you stand on health care?

What I mean by Metacrock's side is the proposition that Jesus Christ had been God Son of God and even 1/3 of God.


Christian doctrine does not hold that Jesus is 1/3 of God.

And not a common viewpoint among non-Xians and secular scholars, that Jesus Christ had been 100% human, that he had two human biological parents, that he was conceived in the usual way, that he had worked no miracles, and that the Gospels are full of unhistorical mythology about him.

I think that is the common view of secular scholarship. It has nothing to do with the issue of his existence in history. These two totally separate issues.He could exist as a man in hisitory and not be the incranate logos. so these are not the same issue.

btw one could be a Christian and accept everything you just said, although such a person would be a dreaded "LIBERAL!"


Metacrock, I'm surprised that you consider such a viewpoint to be a vindication of yours, and not something that's not far removed from Jesus mythicism.


the issue is not the diety of Christ but the hitorical existence of the man thoguht to be Christ by his followers. Two totally sperate issues. I am schokced that you can't see that. I will never unders how atheists can muddle the two issues to a point where they think that Jesus can both and both exist in history and not exist in history depneding upon wheather it's a Christain or an atheist talking about him.

btw I consider the use of "xian" to be equal to the KKK's use of Nigger. So even if you don't mean it that way, don't use it. Can you imagine me going to a democratic meeting and using the N word and then say "but I don't mean it that way?"


I read your Historical Jesus page, and most of your "evidence" is secondhand -- at best.


you don't know what good evidence is. I'm a trained historian you learned history by reading atheist web sites. you didn't know what evidence is.


Metacrock, if you were researching the life and career of a certain Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, would you consider http://www.scientology.org the perfect source on him?


that's neither here nor there. What do you mean by "perfect?" where did I say there's a "perfect source" on Jesus?

I ask that because that's what the Gospels are like about Jesus Christ, and the Gospels are our only detailed primary source on him.


this is an example of how you don't understand historical argument. You think the Gospels are either perfect history of the they are just shit.

that's foolish. The are an artifact. they tell us what the early Christian communities experiences. But just like finding pottery shards. You have to piece together what you found and deduce from artifacts. The Gospels are an artifact.

when an archaeologist finds pottery shards he/she doesn't say "O they are just a bunch of worthless broken pottery, they can't tell us anything.