Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?

[Porpoise of Life]

Yeah, when Porpoise of Life wrote that he agreed with me, I was quite....perplexed. Because he really seemed to be arguing AGAINST what you and I have been saying all along until the few posts of his that you pointed out earlier, showing that he agrees with you.

The one you quoted was my second one in this thread. You quote the first line and yell at me for "being beyond help", then when Leumas quotes the whole thing you agree that we were basically agreeing after all.
My first post here only stated that 'belief in X' and 'truth of X' are not logically equivalent.
Are you confusing me with someone else?

I was talking about the burden of proof for 'a claim' in the abstract (I do think the positive/negative thing is mostly a red herring, since a positive claim can be syntaxically modified to a negative one and vice versa, and many scientific hypoyheses (though not theories) focus on evidence of absence); versus where the burden of proof rests in this situation.

tl;dr: saying that those who claim Jesus did not resurrect have the burden of proof is logical, but still wrong.
And that since the positive claim of a miracle must have come first, pointing at the lack of evidence for that side is enough to meet the burden of proof for the negative claim.

ETA:

He at least admitted to you that he agrees with you despite all the initial wrangling.

Not that I give a whit of a spec of a hoot, but he never admitted that to me... despite posting two posts directed at me which were nothing but a paraphrasing of my previous posts pretending as if he was telling me something I did not know.

I was actually paraphrasing H'ethetheth, whom you were accusing of being a secret Christian, and I asked you to stop ranting about hidden agendas and spouting unrelated Bible quotes.

 

[The Greater Fool]

It is not a stalemate... many theists have become educated and realized the EMPTINESS of their irrational religions because of reading books and participating in discussions on the internet and observing the arguments based on reason and rationality and logic and science against the insults to sanity in their religions.

Thus it is not a stalemate... CASUISTS and APOLOGISTS would like to make it appear to be so in an attempt to STIFLE and FIZZLE OUT any such things as the books and internet discussions that might help lift the pall off of some reasonable theists who could be educated if only they are ALLOWED TO SEE the arguments and books and logic in the first place.

So now the war being waged by casuists and apologists is to go around anywhere this dissemination of reason and rationality and logic and science might occur and try by hook or by crook to obfuscate and malign and disparage and stifle any information.

But as the below post says in words of gold... the scale is indeed tipping on the side of science and sanity.

As atheists we need to keep disseminating logic and reason and science despite all the vitriol and wrangling of apologists and casuists trying to stink out the whole place with their fetid red herrings and ad hominems.

I'm going to agree, but the last few times I have, you took issue, so I'll try again, just for giggles.

I'll also disagree a bit, so you can run with it (again). Do include adhoms, lies, and veiled insults though, those are so cute.

When the faithful begin to question, threads like this CAN help them. At least that was the case for me. Of course, questions about the resurrection, again for me, or any dogma involving miracles are just 'interesting' since it would only be examined after one was leaning toward 'there is no (this) god' that it could be considered, and at that point the heavy lifting has already been done.

While one is faithful, still believing in god, as we've seen here, you can't reason them out of miracles. Atheists and Christians are, in fact, talking past each other. For 600+ posts, they are talking past each other. Each get's the satisfying feeling that they didn't give up, held to the true faith, in the face of rabid opposition. Some, even create foes that aren't there, to have someone to attack.

I dare say that all the information has been repeated many, Many, MANY times in this thread. Certainly, scriptures have been quoted many, Many, MANY times, mostly by you. There comes a time that we just have to accept we have been banging our heads against this particular wall for far too long. Sometimes, we have to accept that this wall is secure, and it's time to go bang our heads against another wall.

Notice I didn't say this, or anything, in the first 100, 200, or even 400 repetitively redundant posts. You know they are repetitively redundant, because you yourself copy & paste and quote your own posts so often it's freaky.

No. Y'all had it covered better than I ever could. Again and Again. So accusing me of attempting to stifle discussion misses the mark. After so much, I don't think it's wrong to say "Hey, I see something wrong here." What I see is what could only be described as hate emanating from only one side of the discussion, which I think is wrong, uncalled for, and ultimately, sad. Even slight, mild disagreement is met as if it were a Bible Thumper sermonizing. Simply, wrong. I call hateful anythings out on it, it does not help the world. I would love the world to abandon religion, theism, and magical thinking. Hate is not a good replacement.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Didn't we already tread this ground?

I thought we did, but it gets complicated and circular. Here's my summary:

1. A general rule is stated: Give evidence for your claim, unless it has a "not."
2. I give an example of a "not" claim, and ask if it needs evidence.
3. I am told that there are certain exceptions that apply.
4. I ask for clarifications on those exceptions.
5. I am referred back to #1, the general rule.

If I'm summarizing events poorly, then I am open to being corrected.

 

[Donn]

I thought we did, but it gets complicated and circular. Here's my summary:

1. A general rule is stated: Give evidence for your claim, unless it has a "not."

This unless it has a "not" is the rot.

Perhaps a better general rule would be: Give evidence for your claim, if your claim is unique — neither contingent-on nor counter-to some existing claim.

(Although, that is a mouthful.)

2. I give an example of a "not" claim, and ask if it needs evidence.

Do you mean:
If a theist says "You cannot prove that God is not real, therefore I can say that he is real," is that rational?

If so, I'd break it down like this:
1. Theist, ergo punting God as a claim.
2. He's turning his existing claim into a fake claim in order to win by confusion.
3. If I reply that, "yes, god is not real," that is simply taking his fake claim and voicing it. It's not a claim at all, it's a con I fell for.
4. I'd conclude that this is not a claim at all.

 

[Nihilianth]

So, to be absolutely clear, anyone saying any of the 5 things in Post #581 is under no obligation to provide evidence, right?

If you did not read my DIRECT response to that post, that is not my problem.

 

[Nihilianth]

The one you quoted was my second one in this thread. You quote the first line and yell at me for "being beyond help", then when Leumas quotes the whole thing you agree that we were basically agreeing after all.
My first post here only stated that 'belief in X' and 'truth of X' are not logically equivalent.
Are you confusing me with someone else?

I was talking about the burden of proof for 'a claim' in the abstract (I do think the positive/negative thing is mostly a red herring, since a positive claim can be syntaxically modified to a negative one and vice versa, and many scientific hypoyheses (though not theories) focus on evidence of absence); versus where the burden of proof rests in this situation.

tl;dr: saying that those who claim Jesus did not resurrect have the burden of proof is logical, but still wrong.
And that since the positive claim of a miracle must have come first, pointing at the lack of evidence for that side is enough to meet the burden of proof for the negative claim.

Ah, ok. That was definitely my fault, and I apologize for that. I did read the first line, and skimmed the rest of the post in a hurry. The bold is something I definitely agree with.

 

[Nihilianth]

If the burden of proof does not apply to negative claims (propositions with a "not" in them), then please tell me which of the following claims require evidence:

1. Jesus did not stay dead after his death.
2. Evolution is not true.
3. It is not possible for the universe to exist without God.
4. Everyone knows there is a god, because atheists do not exist.
5. The Holocaust did not actually happen.

I thought we did, but it gets complicated and circular. Here's my summary:

1. A general rule is stated: Give evidence for your claim, unless it has a "not."
2. I give an example of a "not" claim, and ask if it needs evidence.
3. I am told that there are certain exceptions that apply.
4. I ask for clarifications on those exceptions.
5. I am referred back to #1, the general rule.

If I'm summarizing events poorly, then I am open to being corrected.

1. Is a "NOT" claim. The inverse of this "NOT" claim is: "Jesus rose from the dead." You have to prove the positive claim: "Jesus rose from the dead." There is absolutely NO evidence that this occurred.

2. This is also a "NOT" claim. The inverse of this "NOT" claim is: "Evolution works." This positive claim has been proven. Saying it does not, is like saying "2+2 does not equal 4." Therefore, the burden of proof that evolution does not work now falls on him making that claim. (And yes, I already stated this in another post when it comes to the scientific method. This was in response to the Porpois of Life's post where I mistakenly "yelled" at him:

If it does not work, then the hypothesis dies a quick death. If it does work, after many many experiments, it may eventually become a theory.

The bolded portion is the part where they "prove a negative." But do notice how far down the scientific method that is. The onus of proving a claim, rests solely on the one making a POSITIVE CLAIM FIRST.

3. Is yet another "NOT" claim. The inverse of this "NOT" claim is: "The universe can exist without a god." For this answer, see point #2, and my previous response to this point in another post.

*4. You did NOT ask for any "clarification." This was your 4th point: "4. Everyone knows there is a god, because atheists do not exist." No, you did NOT say: "Can you please clarify?" All you did was give yet another "NOT" claim. I stated that I am an atheist. Much like stating that I dislike the taste of black licorice. That is a PERSONAL position that you can neither prove nor disprove. I stated that I am an atheist, you have the responsibility to accept it. If you don't, that is not my problem.*

5. Wrong. You are pointed back to my response of point 2. You're fifth point is exactly the same as 2 and 3, and off-handedly similar to #4. This is also a "NOT" claim. The inverse to this claim is: "The Holocaust did occur." And just like with my response to your 2nd point, the evidence that it DID occur is overwhelming. Saying it did not, is like saying "2+2 does not equal 4." (The 3rd point is a little more tenuous with the scientific evidence that the universe can exist without a god. But the science and mathematics seems to work quite well. A universe without a god is perfectly plausible.)

*Point number 4 is worthless, because you're talking about personal preferences. I can just as easily say: "Christians do not exist." If a Christian were to state that he/she is a Christian, therefore, they must exist, they cannot PROVE they are a "Christian." If a person says they are a Christian, then they probably are. Sitting here and saying "Christians do not exist" is part of the "talking past one another" that Porpois of Life mentioned. Opinions cannot be proven. Opinions are just opinions. Not statements of fact. I don't like black licorice, doesn't mean that black licorice isn't delicious to someone else. Me not liking black licorice is not a universal truth like "2+2=4."

 

[kmortis]

I have moved a bunch of bickering posts off to AAH. Keep it civil. Keep it on topic. The topic is not the other posters, no matter how much you really want it to be.

Also, knock off the repetitive quoting of posts. It's bordering on spam.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[H'ethetheth]

Here are the two posts which PorpoiseofLife basically paraphrased TWICE (see here) and thus he therefore agrees with my position.

And H'ethetheth NOW says is his position too after all those pages and pages of wrangling.

Did you even read that post?

 

[Leumas]

I'm going to agree...

When the faithful begin to question, threads like this CAN help them.

Yes... and that is all the justification that is needed for atheists to carry on doing them.

While it is also the reason behind why casuists and apologists try so hard to derail and stifle and fizzle them out.

<snip telling us that it is pointless to debate theists>

I dare say that all the information has been repeated many, Many, MANY times in this thread. Certainly, scriptures have been quoted many, Many, MANY times, mostly by you.

Yes... one thing casuists and apologists hate is quotations from the buybull which expose the claptrap in the buybull in full view.

It has been proven that the most influential instrument in making people realize that the buybull is nothing but fakery and nonsense is in fact to read it.

Accordingly it is most loathsome for casuists and apologists when atheists in an argument actually quote verses from the buybull in support of their rebuttal of the theists' claptrap showing that theists have no idea what the buybull actually says. Which also leaves no room for casuists to wrangle and wiggle and writhe and lie their way out.

It would have pleased apologists to no end if only they could do this to all the buybulls in existence.

[imgw=250]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_51282543582378e20a.jpg[/imgw]​

There comes a time that we just have to accept we have been banging our heads against this particular wall for far too long. Sometimes, we have to accept that this wall is secure, and it's time to go bang our heads against another wall.

In threads like this, even if the OP himself is not going to budge in his opinion, onlookers who are theists will see the theistic chicanery and many WILL budge as many have already in the past.

Even atheists will benefit because they might learn new things they can use in their own rebuttals of casuistic claptrap in another situation. Seeing a new bit of the buybull they have not seen before which demonstrates for them even more of the tommyrot in the bubull, will help to bolster their knowledge for other occasions when they have to hold their own grounds.

Another thing is that debates like this even though they might not change the OP's stance give atheists the opportunity to EXPOSE the buybull's claptrap by QUOTING COPIOUSLY from it with detailed highlighting of the bits that demonstrate

• The emptiness of apologetics and casuistry
• The shenanigans that apologists and casuists have to resort to in order to lie their way through the conversation
• The heinousness of the buybull's morality
• The scientific retardation of the buybull
• The mistakes in the buybull

All the above are things that the standard normal theists might have never considered and have never been exposed to.

Thus even if the OP might not budge, onlooking theists will as many have indeed done so.

Notice I didn't say this, or anything, in the first 100, 200, or even 400 repetitively redundant posts. You know they are repetitively redundant, because you yourself copy & paste and quote your own posts so often it's freaky.

Yes... that is because repeated exposure of the buybull's claptrap is something that casuists and apologists hate a lot precisely because it counteracts their own repetition of lies in the hope that the more they repeat the lies the more they will be cemented in people's minds as truths.

Therefore, a counter measure for the repetition of lies is to do an equal amount of repetition of exposing the lies every time they are repeated.

Casuists REALLY hate it when their own methods are used against them.

<snip ad hominems and red herrings>

Thanks for the feeding of the multitudes with magically conjured red herrings.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I won't characterize this post, that what got me yellow carded previously

Thanks for not letting me down. Thanks for another long response to what you wanted to read rather than what was written. Well done.

Of course, I, and I think any reasonable person, would agree that exposing Bible flaws a worthy and laudable chore. Where we might argue, is that quoting the same scripture over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over in the same thread is a tad over the top. Even the MODERATORS agree.

But, haters will hate. A fool and his folly are not easily separated.

 

[Leumas]

I won't characterize this post, that what got me yellow carded previously

<snip ... more casuistic chicanery and skullduggery as further proof for a well and truly tattered false flag>

Hey The Greater Fool... can you please STOP MISQUOTING ME... if you want to SNIP my post then please do the proper thing and use <snip...>.

The way you quoted my post above and put words in it looks like I am the one saying those words which is a LIE and an underhanded rude chicanery... please stop deliberately misquoting me.

You know jolly well that you are supposed to use <snip...> as you have seen me and many other posters using it. Your pretense that you do not know how to do that NUMEROUS times already in many previous posts is a deliberate TRICK to deceive.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Hey The Greater Fool... can you please STOP MISQUOTING ME... if you want to SNIP my post then please do the proper thing and use <snip...>.

The way you quoted my post above and put words in it looks like I am the one saying those words which is a LIE and an underhanded rude chicanery... please stop deliberately misquoting me.

You know jolly well that you are supposed to use <snip...> as you have seen me and many other posters using it. Your pretense that you do not know how to do that NUMEROUS times already in many previous posts is a deliberate TRICK to deceive.

Keep that sense of humor, it's critical.

 

[IanS]

You are absolutely beyond help. I have provided plenty of reasons and examples, all based on formal logic, and not one post of mine have you responded to.

Hell, I even posted the SCIENTIFIC FRIGGIN METHOD!

When it comes to the scientific method, the way it works, is a scientist makes a POSITIVE claim about something; called a "hypothesis." Other scientists can certainly say: "That is not true." They don't have to do anything to prove it isn't true.

The scientist making the POSITIVE claim, then sets about making an experiment to test their hypothesis. If it works, they announce their discovery.

Once said discovery is announced, then other scientists will set about doing said experiment, in order to see for themselves that it works! If it does not work, then the hypothesis dies a quick death. If it does work, after many many experiments, it may eventually become a theory.

The bolded portion is the part where they "prove a negative." But do notice how far down the scientific method that is. The onus of proving a claim, rests solely on the one making a POSITIVE CLAIM FIRST.

Here's how it works with a resurrection:

1. YOU make the claim that Jesus rose from the dead.
2. YOU make the experiment to prove that it was true.
3. If you prove that a dead person may come back from the dead after rotting inside a tomb for three days, you will have to make the announcement that your experiment worked.
4. Then other scientists will set about attempting to prove your POSITIVE claim, using the exact same experiment!
5. If it works, it gets tested some more.
6. If it ALWAYS works, and works CONSISTENTLY, then it becomes theory, making Jesus' resurrection plausible.
7 If it fails to work for other scientists, then your theory dies a quick death. We can continue to conclusively say: "Jesus did not rise from the dead."

I don't disagree with the above, or really most of the arguments either way. I understand how each view was reached. I'm a science fan, not a practitioner.

The resurrection is not a scientific claim or issue. Under normal circumstances, not even Christians claim resurrection is possible. The resurrection of Jesus is a miracle, and by definition miracles are outside the normal. So this is actually a sub argument of the existence of a meddling god.

Being a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science. In fact, it's a rather useless argument either way. If you believe in meddling god(s), you don't need scientific proof, by definition. If you don't believe in god(s), you don't need scientific proof, by definition.

Of course, as atheists, we believe (please, quibble not) there are no god(s), which makes the resurrection (and the whole of holy texts) fictional stories that don't need disproving, any more than any work of fiction needs to be disproved.

ETA: Apologies for being on-topic. I try to watch that in the future

Re. the highlighted bit saying "Being a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science." - you do not actually have any miracles to show or to be investigated by science. All you have is a claim of a miracle. And science can certainly investigate and explain why all throughout human history countless people have made completely untrue claims of witnessing miracles ... so it's certainly explicable by and through science.

 

[Leumas]

Re. the highlighted bit saying "Being a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science." - you do not actually have any miracles to show or to be investigated by science. All you have is a claim of a miracle. And science can certainly investigate and explain why all throughout human history countless people have made completely untrue claims of witnessing miracles ... so it's certainly explicable by and through science.

The wish that science should have no magisteria over religious matters is something apologists would love dearly if they could manage to shove through the trap door of illogic onto the magical stage of casuistic legerdemain.

The ultimate in hypocrisy is that those very same casuists do not hesitate to utilize logic and science to ridicule big foot crazies and UFO nutters and all religious claims that are not theirs... there they do not mind the magisteria of science over those other fakeries just not over their sky daddy.

 

[Leumas]

You could be right in your overall thesis in this quote, I guess. But as far as those verses are concerned and what the early Christian writers were claiming, Jesus put things in parables but the faithful followers did understand it when the Holy Spirit or Jesus revealed the meanings to them. It was the uninitiated and unenlightened who didn't understand the parables, but Jesus did and explained them.

Isn't Jesus supposed to be FOR ALL PEOPLE and not just a few faithful followers?

Wasn't it his job to have made sure that the "uninitiated and unenlightened" get enlightened and therefore initiated?

Notice what Jesus says in Mark 4:10-12

• 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
• 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
• 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

It seems to me here that Jesus didn't want just anyone to understand his gobbledygook.

Even more ASTOUNDINGLY, he didn't even want people to believe because they might get saved.

Jesus

• Does not want just anyone to understand
• Does not want just anyone to believe
• Does not want just anyone to be saved

Jesus did not want anybody except his CULT FOLLOWERS to understand his MYSTERY CULT scam.

In other words Jesus himself admitted that he DELIBERATELY made his hogwash INCOMPREHENSIBLE because he never intended for all people to understand and believe and get saved... just a few followers of the MYSTERY CULT pyramid scheme.

Jesus didn't want except a few to be saved.... by his own admission.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Re. the highlighted bit saying "Being a religious claim about a miracle performed by a meddling god, it is outside of science, and the rules of science." - you do not actually have any miracles to show or to be investigated by science. All you have is a claim of a miracle. And science can certainly investigate and explain why all throughout human history countless people have made completely untrue claims of witnessing miracles ... so it's certainly explicable by and through science.

Modern miracles certainly can and have been examined rationally. All I know of that have been examined have been demonstrated, at least to the rational mind, as less miraculous and more firmly within the mundane. Yes, scientific principles establish what is, in fact, natural or mundane. "This miracle violates the known science" is not a debunking (though it is completely true), as again, miracle means that it is outside known science.

"The miracle violates the known science" (although completely true) is equally unsatisfactory at debunking holy writ miracles. Again, that it was called a miracle acknowledges it is outside of the natural or mundane. Unfortunately, unlike modern 'miracles', we have no way of examining the facts around the event.

If there were all powerful meddling god(s), miracles would be possible. Fortunately, at least for atheists, evidence is that there are no meddling god(s), thus no holy writ, no miracles, it's done. Until arguers settle the meddling god(s) argument, the others flowing from them are cart before the horse.

Of course, it's not a reason to abandon the discussion, but on repeating ourselves perhaps the fifth or tenth or even twentieth time, it may be time to move on.

The wish that science should have no magisteria over religious matters is something apologists would love dearly if they could manage to shove through the trap door of illogic onto the magical stage of casuistic legerdemain.

The ultimate in hypocrisy is that those very same casuists do not hesitate to utilize logic and science to ridicule big foot crazies and UFO nutters and all religious claims that are not theirs... there they do not mind the magisteria of science over those other fakeries just not over their sky daddy.

Here I am agreeing again, let slip the dogs of war!

I agree that mutually exclusive magisteria is nonsense. As a source for morality, which religion wants to claim as it's own, morality based on make believe is the worst possible choice. Religion has no place in science, education, or if many of us had our way, no place in existence.

You can use science to debunk the list (ET, bigfoot, gods). ET may be real, but not local, bigfoot and god, not no way, not no how. Having established ET, Bigfoot, and god(s) aren't lumbering about, you don't need to deal with what they (don't) do. Of course, this is not a prohibition against doing so, we all do unnecessary things all the time, just that it is not necessary. It's certainly not worth getting vexed because allies don't use the right words.

Morality is probably the one area that there being no god doesn't seem to affect much. Too many people think holy writ is nonetheless a good source of morality, which obviously could not be more wrong. The resurrection doesn't affect society at large, while the crappy morality is all over the place, that 60 years ago would have kept me from marrying my spouse, and until recently kept my daughter from marrying. We must wrest morality from the religious. Quoting scripture to demonstrate the bankruptcy of the fictitious god(s) and their make believe morality *IS* a place that headway can and has been made. Fight the good fight!

 

[IanS]

Modern miracles certainly can and have been examined rationally.

Which actual miracles have been examined by anything? Not just a claim of a miracle ... I want you to produce an example of an actual miracle that has been examined.

Look, you are not actually talking about any known miracles being examined by anything. All you have are claims of miracles.

Claims which have so far all been shown as untrue.

All I know of that have been examined have been demonstrated, at least to the rational mind, as less miraculous and more firmly within the mundane.

What do you mean merely "less miraculous"? Which "lesser" part of the claim was actually miraculous?

Yes, scientific principles establish what is, in fact, natural or mundane. "This miracle violates the known science" is not a debunking (though it is completely true), as again, miracle means that it is outside known science.

"The miracle violates the known science" (although completely true) is equally unsatisfactory at debunking holy writ miracles. Again, that it was called a miracle acknowledges it is outside of the natural or mundane. Unfortunately, unlike modern 'miracles', we have no way of examining the facts around the event.

Sorry but you are going around in your own circular argument like a mouse pedaling around a wheel. You are again trying to imply that there are indeed actual miracles that science cannot investigate. You just said "This miracle violates the known science" ... well, which miracle is that? Where is this miracle which you just said was "outside known science"?

Where is the miracle please? You do not actually have any miracles. All you have are untrue claims of miracles.

If there were all powerful meddling god(s),
miracles would be possible.

What do you mean "If there were all powerful meddling god(s)"?? What you are claiming there is to say - "If there are gods producing miracles, then there are miracles"! You are just in a circular loop trying to say "if I define A to be true, then A is now true because I just said it was by my own invented definition!" ... if you had a miracle working god .... then you could have miracles ... but where is this miracle working god?, and where are the miracles??? ...

.... what you have is an unsubstantiated claim of a miracle working god, and loads of untrue claims of miracles ... and science can most certainly be used to investigate why you or anyone else claims to know gods and claims to witness or perform miracles.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I don't think anyone posting over the past few pages actually believes in real miracles.

 

[Donn]

You sexay thing, sexy thing.